reboot_required

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the detection logic (Debian/Ubuntu reboot-required marker vs. running-kernel-older-than-newest), but does not state read-only safety, needed permissions, or whether the check is costly. Some genuine value, clear gaps remain.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and outcome, with the clarifying detail parenthesized. Zero wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool takes one simple parameter. The description covers the concept and detection method well; only minor gaps around permissions/behavior remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'server' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, naming, or resolution detail beyond it, matching the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and a precisely scoped resource: whether a Linux server is pending a reboot. The parenthetical even names the two detection mechanisms, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like kernel_version or uptime.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it never routes the agent away from the closely related kernel_version sibling. Adequate but leaves the choice to inference.

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