resolve_reconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'force reconnection' and a use case, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., resetting state, discarding unsaved changes), idempotency (safe to call repeatedly?), or error handling (what happens if already connected). For a 'force' operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action ('force reconnection') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no detailed output schema exposed, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks any note about behavior when called repeatedly or potential to interrupt ongoing operations, which would help an agent decide if a reconnect is safe mid-session. Given the simplicity, a 3 is fair but not higher.

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 schema coverage is 100% (an empty schema). Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add any parameter semantics; the schema already documents everything. This is a non-issue.

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 'Force reconnection to DaVinci Resolve' – a specific verb ('force reconnection') and resource ('DaVinci Resolve'). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle reconnection. The purpose is unambiguous and unique.

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 a clear trigger: 'Use if Resolve was restarted.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but given the tool's niche role (reconnect), the condition is sufficient to differentiate it from other resolve_* operations.

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