check_restart_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the validation rules, required restart files by type (d3dump vs d3full), and that time values of 0 are treated as unknown. It never explicitly says the tool is read-only or has no side effects, but the 'validate/check' framing strongly implies that.

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 definition is front-loaded and dense, with most sentences contributing concrete rules or parameter meaning. The trailing 'Args:' list partly repeats content already implied earlier, but it usefully enumerates all parameters given the bare schema titles.

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 7-parameter validation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the essential validation logic, file checks, and parameter meanings. It could add an explicit side-effect profile, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description names all seven parameters and adds meaningful semantics: 'directory' is the earlier run's folder, solver_precision is single|double, processing_type is SMP|MPP, restart_type values are Simple/Small/Full, and 0 times are unknown. It leaves number_of_cores and the exact previous/new end-time distinction relatively bare, so not a 5.

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 states a specific verb (validate) and resource (restart setup), and details the concrete rules and file checks involved for Simple/Small/Full restarts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as presolve_check or list_restart_files, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'before solving' gives clear timing context, and it explains the conditional behavior when 'directory' is supplied. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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