reiniciar_claude

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive side effect (the app is closed), the concrete cost ('A conversa atual é interrompida por uns 10 s'), and the confirmation requirement. It stops short of saying whether unsaved work beyond the conversation is affected.

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: the action and its purpose come first, then the cost and the confirmation gate. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers action, rationale, side effect, and the confirmation gate. Minor gap: it does not say what the caller should do if the restart fails or whether a success/failure result must be surfaced to the user.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'confirmado' boolean, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that confirmado=true is mandatory and that it must reflect actual user approval, not agent initiative. The type/default are left to the schema, which is acceptable for one flag.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Fecha e reabre o Claude Desktop') and even supplies the reason ('para carregar ferramentas novas do agente'). No sibling tool does app restart, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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?

It states the triggering situation (loading new agent tools) and a hard precondition ('só com o OK do usuário'), which functions as a when-not rule. It does not enumerate alternative approaches for refreshing tools, but for a single-purpose restart tool the guidance is clear.

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