restart_and_load

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

The description provides rich behavioral details beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), including the full sequence of steps, estimated timing (60-120 seconds), and side effects like killing the process and OCR navigation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a summary, an Args section, and numbered steps. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (multi-step destructive recovery), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, timing, and post-action verification (calling get_game_overview). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the sole parameter save_name: its format (e.g., 'AutoSave_0221') and default behavior (loads most recent autosave if not provided). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full game recovery: kill, relaunch, and load a save.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the combined action distinguishes it from sibling tools like kill_game, launch_game, and load_save.

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 recommends this tool for recovering from game hangs, e.g., 'AI turn processing stuck in infinite loop.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool over individual steps.

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