service_restart_tool

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 adds useful behavioral context about avoiding conflict with systemd process management, but it does not disclose what happens during the restart (e.g., downtime, whether it blocks until active, or if it reloads systemd). It also does not mention any permission requirements or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 (one parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the critical systemd context and the reason for this tool's existence. It could mention prerequisites like the unit needing to exist or be enabled, but that is not essential for a basic restart operation.

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 unit_name fully with 100% coverage, including an example. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond repeating 'systemd unit'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate with additional semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Restart a Podman container systemd unit.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling container_restart_tool by explaining this is the correct systemd-aware approach, avoiding the conflict that direct podman restart would cause.

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 second sentence explicitly states when to use this tool ('on systems where containers are managed by systemd') and when not to ('Using podman restart directly would conflict'). This provides clear guidance versus the container_restart_tool sibling, even though it does not name that tool explicitly.

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