reboot_device

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses high risk, records prior status for audit trail, no undo, and supports dry_run. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but adequately describes the side effects for a reboot 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 very concise with a header indicating risk and type, followed by a short behavioral note and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with key facts.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, risk, parameters, and behavioral notes. It doesn't describe the return value but is otherwise complete. Sibling tools are many, but the tool's unique action is clear.

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 description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: serial as device serial, dry_run as preview toggle, target as optional name from config. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type info.

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 that the tool reboots a device, with a '[WRITE][risk=high]' header indicating high-risk write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'device_status' or 'blink_device_leds' by specifying the exact action and noting its irreversibility.

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 advises using dry_run=True to preview and warns that a reboot cannot be undone, with no undo descriptor offered. It implies high-risk usage but does not explicitly mention when to avoid the tool or compare it to alternatives.

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