restart_worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the destructive consequence (all open documents, unsaved changes and handles in this workspace are lost), the isolation boundary (other workspaces untouched), and the return payload shape ({restarted, workspace, freecad}). It does not mention required permissions or how long the restart takes / whether it blocks, which are relevant for a process-killing operation.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: action, trigger, destructive warning, scope boundary, return shape. The destructive warning is placed immediately after the action rather than buried, which is the right front-loading for a restart tool.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape, and it covers the two things an agent most needs before calling: the trigger condition and the data-loss scope. For a parameterless, irreversible operation this is complete enough to call safely.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics the description could add. Nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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 precise verb+resource pair: killing the current workspace's FreeCAD worker and spawning a fresh one, with explicit scoping to 'THIS workspace' versus 'other workspaces are untouched'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like close_workspace or ping without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition ('Use when the worker is wedged, e.g. App.ActiveDocument desynced from internal state') and a caveat to save first. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. whether close_workspace/use_workspace would be a substitute), so it stops short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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