restart_panel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet 'Restart EasyPanel' reveals nothing about the consequences of the operation. It does not state that the panel interface becomes temporarily unavailable, whether running apps are affected, or whether server reboot is the alternative when the panel is unreachable. The only behavioral signal is the inherent meaning of the verb 'restart.'

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?

At two words, the description contains zero wasted prose and matches the trivial zero-parameter interface. However, the brevity reads more like under-specification than disciplined concision, since no usage, behavioral, or alternative context is included.

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 disruptive lifecycle operation with no annotations and no output schema, a two-word description is incomplete. The agent cannot determine whether restarting the panel interrupts managed apps or how this differs from reboot_server, and no conditions or caveats are given. Given the size of the sibling tool family, this is a meaningful gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. There are no arguments for the description to clarify, and no parameter semantics are missing.

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 ('Restart') and a named resource ('EasyPanel'), making clear that this tool restarts the panel platform itself rather than an app or the server. It is only minimally differentiated from siblings like restart_app or reboot_server, but the core purpose is unambiguous and it adds the product name beyond what the tool name implies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as restart_app, reboot_server, system_prune, or cleanup_docker. There is no mention of the conditions that warrant a panel restart, no exclusions, and no alternatives. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name.

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