restart_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the stop-start sequence, waiting for completion, and return messages. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or concurrency considerations, which would enhance transparency.

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?

The description is structured with sections like [Tool Role], [Core Functions], and [Required Usage Scenarios], making it front-loaded with key information. However, it is somewhat verbose and includes redundancy (e.g., Args section repeats schema).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, but output schema exists), the description provides comprehensive information: behavior, scenarios, and return format. The agent can confidently invoke the tool based on this description alone.

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?

The schema has 1 parameter (service_name) with 0% description coverage. The description adds: 'Name of the service to restart (e.g., "HDFS", "YARN")', providing example values that compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It does not add constraints but is helpful.

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 clearly states it restarts a specific Ambari service with a stop-then-start sequence. It distinguishes from siblings like start_service, stop_service, and restart_all_services by focusing on the single-service restart action.

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?

The description explicitly lists required usage scenarios: when users request 'restart', troubleshooting, or maintenance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like restart_all_services, though the scenarios provide sufficient guidance.

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