ddev_restart

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does state 'stops then starts', but it introduces conflicting invocation details: the schema expects a single 'projectPath', while the description mentions multiple 'projectname' arguments and CLI flags not present in the schema. It also fails to mention confirmation behavior, side effects on running processes, or error handling, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 relatively short, with a clear first sentence followed by usage and flags. It earns its place by giving actionable CLI context, though the 'Usage' line is somewhat redundant with the first sentence and the schema. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, but not maximally efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context: no return value description, no mention of what happens if the project is not running, and no clarification on how the schema's projectPath relates to the projectname syntax. The parameter mismatch severely undermines the completeness for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes projectPath clearly, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds 'projectname ...' and flags like -a/--all and -y/--skip-confirmation, which are not reflected in the schema. This creates confusion rather than enriching the meaning of the actual parameter, potentially misleading an agent about what input is expected.

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 'Restart a DDEV project: stops then starts named project(s)', which uses a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ddev_start and ddev_stop by explicitly defining the restart operation as the combination of stop and start.

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 provides usage syntax and flags, implying when to use it (for restarting projects), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like ddev_start, ddev_stop, or ddev_poweroff. There is no 'use this instead of X when...' guidance, so the usage context is only partially clear.

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