self_openbot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses operation ordering (new terminal opens first, old process retired seconds later), the refusal guard when the replacement command is not on PATH, and the irrecoverability of killing with no replacement. It does not say what happens to in-flight agent sessions or whether the call returns before the restart completes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the safety caveat. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it covers sequencing, timing, the PATH refusal path, and irrecoverability — enough to call the tool safely. Remaining gaps (effect on other sessions, return behavior) are modest for a self-restart primitive.

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 all four parameters including dry_run are already documented in the schema. The description only obliquely references the replacement command and the delay ('a few seconds later'), adding no format or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'Restart the agent host that is running this tool' — and self-scopes to the current host, which cleanly separates it from the sibling lifecycle tools (agent_respawn, agent_spawn, agent_stop) that act on other agents.

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?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Use after changing config, plugins or MCP servers that only take effect on restart.' The self-scoping phrase 'the host that is running this tool' implicitly excludes alternatives, but no sibling (e.g. agent_respawn) is named as a counter-option, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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