force_reconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating side effects: clearing health cache, resetting circuit breaker, and attempting a fresh connection. It could add more about potential disruption or authentication requirements, but for a zero-parameter tool this is solid.

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 of dense, useful information. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete effects and a clear usage trigger. No filler or redundant content.

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 zero-parameter force-action tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what the tool does, which internal state it affects, and when to invoke it. It does not describe the return value or failure behavior, but the action is straightforward and the given context is enough to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a clear, specific action: force reconnection to the OpenCTI server. It also enumerates concrete internal behaviors (clears health cache, resets circuit breaker, attempts fresh connection), which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_health or get_network_status.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after configuration changes or to recover from persistent errors. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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