gateway_restart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action ('restart') and purpose, but does not mention anticipated side effects such as dropped connections, service downtime, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a notable gap for a potentially disruptive operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and immediately provides the purpose, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete for basic invocation. However, it lacks explicit context about operational impact or prerequisites (e.g., that restarting will interrupt active messaging sessions). This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics to add. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description need not explain parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Restart the messaging gateway.' It also gives a clear reason, 'so configuration changes take effect.' It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like gateway_status, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'so configuration changes take effect' provides a clear context for when to use this tool: after configuration updates. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is sufficiently implied.

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