fl_reconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing that file-bus has no persistent connection and that the operation clears client-side state and re-pings. It does not detail what state is cleared or potential side effects, but the core non-obvious behavior is transparent.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence: the main action comes first, followed by a parenthetical that adds necessary context. No words are wasted.

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 utility with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the underlying architecture ('no persistent connection'), and the concrete effect. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about return/status behavior.

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 an empty schema with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description introduces no contradictions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Reset the bridge client') and explains the operation as clearing client-side state and re-pinging. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast this with fl_ping or fl_bridge_info, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 the tool is useful (when client-side state needs clearing or a fresh ping is desired), but it never states explicit conditions or rules out alternatives like fl_ping. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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