Reconnect Backend Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the state-changing behaviors: resetting circuit breaker, evicting cache, and forcing a probe. It also conditions behavior on profile ownership (own profile vs operator profile). It could go further by stating consequences of a failed probe or idempotency, but it is substantially transparent.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose (what, when, prerequisite). No filler; the core action is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Single-parameter tool with an output schema, and the description covers the triggering scenario and a key precondition. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a clear description with examples. The description adds semantic nuance by restricting valid backends to the caller's own profile (or explaining operator profiles), which is not in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb 'recover' and resource 'single backend', explicitly distinguishing this from restarting the gateway. The description details three concrete actions (resets circuit breaker, evicts stale cache, forces fresh probe), which sets it apart from sibling tools like cache_flush_tool or reload_profiles_tool.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'when a backend container was restarted and its calls now fail', and names cache_flush_tool as an alternative that is insufficient. It also adds a usage prerequisite about own profile vs operator profile, giving clear selection criteria.

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