Restart Worker

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true/net false, and the description adds significant context: it lists exactly what is lost ('All open documents, unsaved changes, and handles in THIS workspace') and what is preserved ('Other workspaces are untouched'). It also states the return shape, providing full behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words: action, trigger, consequences, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (destruction scope) is front-loaded.

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 description is complete for a destructive zero-parameter tool. It covers operation, conditions, side effects, scope, and return shape. With no output schema, the explicit return format fills that 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, so there is no parameter burden on the description. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Description states a precise verb ('Kill the current workspace's FreeCAD worker process and spawn a fresh one') with the exact resource and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from any sibling tool by its action and target, and the title 'Restart Worker' aligns with the description without being a tautology.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use when the worker is wedged (e.g. App.ActiveDocument desynced from internal state).' It gives a clear contextual trigger but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names. This is clear context without exclusions.

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