unit_restart_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a notable behavior: refusal for protected units. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as potential downtime, permission requirements, or what happens if the unit is not running.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the protected-list restriction is stated efficiently. Nothing here wastes the agent's attention.

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 and an output schema exists, but the description leaves the 'protected list' undefined and does not explain how an agent can determine whether a given unit is protected. Without annotations or additional context, this is a meaningful gap, though not crippling for a one-parameter action.

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 single parameter unit_name is already fully described in the schema as 'Systemd unit name' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantics about format, valid values, or naming conventions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Restart a unit'), which is immediately clear and distinct from sibling operations like start, stop, or reload. The refusal clause adds an important boundary without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use restart versus the closely related sibling tools such as unit_start_tool, unit_stop_tool, or unit_reload_tool. The protected-list refusal is a constraint, but it does not help an agent choose between alternatives.

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