agent_respawn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the effect (picks up the current binary because a running process keeps its booted model list), which is genuinely useful. But it never says whether the session's conversation state is preserved or lost on restart, nor any permission/auth requirements, which matters for a process-restarting 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the trigger rationale. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and roughly how scope is selected. The remaining gap is state-preservation semantics, which an agent would want before restarting a live session.

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 50%: the 'session' parameter is documented in the schema but 'all' is not, and there are no required parameters. The description's parenthetical '(or all of them)' hints at the `all` parameter's role, partially compensating, but it adds no format or interaction detail (e.g., what happens if both are supplied) beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 ('Restart') and resource ('Claude background session'), and immediately clarifies scope via '(or all of them)'. The rationale clause ('so it picks up the CURRENT Claude binary') separates it cleanly from siblings like agent_resume, agent_stop, and agent_spawn, which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use after `claude update`, or when a session was started by an older build.' This is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name alternative tools (e.g., when agent_resume is preferable instead) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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