restart_napcat_service

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait beyond the schema: it blocks/wait until the port is listening ready, via wait_seconds, implying the restart is not instantaneous. However it omits what happens to in-flight connections, existing sessions, or the failure mode if the process does not come back up.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, which is good. But the trailing ':param ...' lines duplicate the input schema word-for-word, adding length without adding information, so structure is only adequate.

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 disruptive restart tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its blocking wait but omits permissions/auth requirements, failure behavior, and the effect on active sessions or logins. It is minimally sufficient to call but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the description only restates them verbatim (':param uin:' / ':param wait_seconds:') with no added format, constraint, or fallback semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: '强制重启本地 NapCat 后台服务进程' (force-restart the local NapCat backend service process). It clearly reads as a restart action, which an agent can distinguish from start/stop siblings by the verb. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with start_napcat_service/stop_napcat_service, so it is not a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never says when a restart is preferable to stop+start, or what state triggers a restart, and no prerequisite conditions are mentioned. The only conditional content is the optional uin parameter, which is usage of a parameter, not guidance on tool selection.

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