bridge_restart

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

The description says 'Restart the bridge,' which is a state-changing operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the annotation and could mislead an agent relying on read-only semantics. The added detail about keeping the current port is useful, but the contradiction dominates this dimension.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action, default behavior, and use case each appear in short, direct sentences. The bilingual format does not introduce unnecessary verbosity and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, default port behavior, and when to invoke it. It does not explain return values or post-restart behavior, but these are not critical for this operation; the main completeness issue is the annotation contradiction already flagged.

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 schema already describes the single optional port parameter with 100% coverage, including the fact that omitting it keeps the current port. The description restates that behavior but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Restart the bridge') on a specific resource, and adds the meaningful scope detail that it keeps the current port by default. It is also clearly distinguishable from sibling bridge tools like bridge_status, bridge_ping, and bridge_stop because 'restart' conveys stop-and-start rather than status or connection checks.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use it when an AI client lost the connection and cannot recover. This is clear contextual guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or conditions where this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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