restart_service

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it reveals the destructive sequence (kill then start), the safety confirm-lock that prevents accidental kills, and the required post-restart verification. It doesn't spell out side effects like failure modes or the impact of killing an active node, but it is transparent enough for safe 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, supported service, safety rule, and verification step. The description is compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the tool's core behavior before safety and follow-up notes.

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 that this is a simple two-parameter destruction tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: what it does, how to safety-confirm it, which service is supported, and how to verify success. It also complements the sibling list by pointing to ros_topic_status as the required validation channel. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain the parameters. It does so for both: 'confirm' must be explicitly True, and 'service' is exemplified by 'ego_planner' (obj_nav.launch). It doesn't enumerate all possible service names, but it clearly states the currently supported one, which is sufficient for the current one-service scope.

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 action — restart a critical ROS service — and the exact mechanism: kill process first, then start in background. It also names the currently supported service (ego_planner with obj_nav.launch), making it unambiguous what resource this tool acts on and distinguishing it from sibling status/exec 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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is the tool for restarting the supported 'ego_planner' service, the confirm parameter is a mandatory safety gate, and the agent is instructed to verify via ros_topic_status after the restart. It does not, however, explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with exec_cmd/ssh_exec as an alternative, so it misses the when-not/alternative dimension by one level.

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