restart_clo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the checkpoint save ('before_restart'), that CLO is ended without its own save prompt, the failure fallback ('nothing is closed unless discard_unsaved=True'), and that plug-ins only load at startup. These are exactly the destructive/irreversibility facts an agent needs before invoking a restart.

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?

Front-loads the action and the safety-critical checkpoint behavior in the first two paragraphs, with the Args block reserved for parameter detail. Dense but every sentence carries behavioral or parameter information; only mild redundancy between the prose and the Args list.

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 side-effecting restart tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers recovery semantics, save/failure behavior, timeout, and plug-in installation. An agent could invoke it correctly without any further inference.

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 document all five parameters, and the Args block does so for every one, adding semantics the schema lacks (e.g. install_plugin is a DLL path because plug-ins load only at startup; discard_unsaved governs the save-failure fallback path). Nothing is left undocumented.

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 ('Close CLO and start it again') and immediately scopes the intent with concrete use cases (rebuilt plug-in, recover from a hang). No sibling tool in the list restarts the host, so it is trivially distinguishable from new_project, open_file, and the export/simulation tools.

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 when-to-use context ('to load a rebuilt plug-in or recover from a hang'), which tells an agent the triggering conditions. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to restart, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear and actionable.

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