infra_restart_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints: `confirm=true` is mandatory and the service must be allowed. This goes beyond the schema, which only shows defaults. While it does not detail downtime or error behavior, it effectively communicates the guardrails for this mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Two short paragraphs convey purpose, requirements, and param semantics. The inline code formatting for `confirm=true`, `INFRA_ALLOWED_SERVICES`, and `stack` enhances readability without bloat.

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 tool with no annotations, a 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, this description is quite complete. It covers the core usage, required conditions, and stack handling. It could add edge cases (e.g., what if service not found) or caution about downtime, but it is sufficiently complete for effective invocation.

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. It explains all three parameters: service (the target), confirm (must be true), and stack (selects compose project, omit for default). This gives full semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Restart a compose service.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like infra_status_tool (status), infra_logs_tool (logs), and infra_disk_tool (disk), making the purpose 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?

It provides clear context for use by stating prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true AND service in INFRA_ALLOWED_SERVICES.' It also explains when to use the `stack` parameter ('picks which compose project; omit for default'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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