restart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the meaningful side effect that max_heap_mb 'sets this file's heap cap from now on', which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about what is lost when the server is torn down (in-memory proof state), whether the operation is disruptive, or its cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by trigger examples and then parameter semantics. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter restart tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the non-obvious heap-cap semantics. The main gap is the absence of any statement about post-restart state or disruption, which an agent might want before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_heap_mb well — '0 for none' and that the server's configured cap applies by default — which is more than the bare integer schema conveys. The required 'file' parameter is only implied via 'this file', not explicitly described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Restart this file's server') and gives two concrete trigger examples. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling 'retryCompile', which an agent could easily confuse with a restart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear when-to-use context: after dependencies were rebuilt, or when diagnostics reports a probably looping proof. That implies a diagnostics-first workflow, but no explicit when-not condition or named alternative is offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.