restart_service

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., service downtime, required privileges, failure behavior) or what happens if the service is already stopped. The annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent action, but the description fails to elaborate on the operational impact.

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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then adding a critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place.

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, the description is incomplete: it does not explain parameter semantics, return behavior, or any prerequisites. Given the lack of output schema and low schema coverage, the agent is left guessing about essential details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of the 'name' and 'scope' parameters. An agent cannot infer what values are expected or how scope affects the operation. This is a critical gap.

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 verb (restart) and the resource (systemd service), and explicitly excludes the status-check use case, distinguishing it from get_service_status. It is specific and 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('only when the user asks to restart/fix it') and a clear exclusion ('not to check status'). However, it does not mention alternatives like start_service or stop_service, only the status-check case, so some sibling differentiation is missing.

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