pi_restart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context by warning that open windows are lost, which goes beyond the generic destructive flag. It also clarifies the restart semantics (kill then relaunch), providing useful safety information for the agent.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key action ('Kill PixInsight and relaunch the daemon') and then packs the rationale and caveat into the remainder. There is no wasted wording, and every clause adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it does, why it is useful, and a key side effect. It does not mention return values, but that is not critical for a restart operation. The presence of the destructive annotation and the explicit warning about windows make it sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to elaborate on, and the description does not need to add anything.

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 a specific action ('Kill PixInsight and relaunch the daemon') and its purpose ('picks up daemon code changes'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pi_stop, which would only stop, and pi_start_session, which manages sessions. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: after daemon code changes, to apply updates. It also warns about destructive consequences ('open windows are lost'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like pi_stop, leaving some inference to the agent.

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