restart_frigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly warns that 'This will briefly interrupt recording and detection,' which is a critical side effect. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like termination of active streams or whether a config reload is included, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the action, the second delivers a necessary warning. No filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient 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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the key contextual point—the interruption impact. It doesn't address prerequisites (e.g., must save config first) or alternatives, but given the simplicity and the existence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description need not explain parameter meanings. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and nothing in the description contradicts or adds unnecessary parameter-related info.

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 action ('Restart the Frigate process') with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool in the list performs a restart.

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 usage for restarting Frigate but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., save_config for config changes). The warning about interruption provides some context for deciding whether to proceed, but lacks explicit guidance on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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