reconnect_unity

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior about port auto-discovery ('Port 0 or omitted = auto-discover from port files'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what 'reconnect' entails (e.g., whether it restarts a process, clears caches, or has side effects), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is extremely compact: two clauses that immediately convey the purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with such a simple schema and no output schema, the description is too terse. It fails to explain what the reconnect operation does beyond the port behavior, nor does it address error cases or prerequisites. More critically, the misleading port reference creates confusion that undermines completeness.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, but the description refers to a 'Port' that can be 0 or omitted. This is misleading: an agent would reasonably expect to pass a port parameter, but the schema rejects any properties. The description introduces nonexistent parameter semantics, directly conflicting with 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: "Reconnect to Unity." This is a specific verb (reconnect) and target (Unity), and it is distinct from sibling tools like sync_unity by focusing on re-establishing a connection rather than syncing state.

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 implies the tool is used when a connection to Unity needs to be re-established, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sync_unity. The mention of port auto-discovery gives some context, but there is no clear guidance on when this tool should be chosen over others.

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