reboot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and largely meets it. It discloses that the action is IRREVERSIBLE, has no undo, and is audit-only, plus the write/risk profile via the [WRITE][risk=high] prefix. It also flags dry_run as a preview mechanism. It does not detail post-reboot behavior (downtime, reconnection) but the irreversible warning covers the most critical behavioral risk.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded — the first line delivers purpose and risk in a single sentence, with the critical IRREVERSIBLE warning placed for maximum impact. The dry_run tip and two-line Args block are minimal and each sentence earns its place. No wasted verbiage.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, risk, usage, and both parameters. The main gap is that for a high-risk irreversible action, it could mention expected consequences post-reboot or any confirmation/guardrails, but the audit-only and irreversibility warnings substantially cover the completeness need.

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 the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters. It explains dry_run (preview without rebooting) and target (firewall target from config, optional, defaults). Both parameters are documented in the Args block, though only at a surface level without concrete value formats or examples.

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?

Description states a specific verb (Reboot) targeting a specific resource (the firewall), and explicitly flags it as IRREVERSIBLE and audit-only. The [WRITE][risk=high] prefix further clarifies the action type, distinguishing it from the many read-only sibling tools like health_status, interface_status, and firmware_status that share the same resource domain.

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 clearly signals when to use it ('Reboot the firewall', 'audit only'), and the [WRITE][risk=high] tag combined with sibling names makes the read-vs-write distinction clear. It notes previewing via dry_run=True, though it does not explicitly enumerate which sibling alternatives exist or state when NOT to reboot beyond 'audit only', leaving some implicit inference to the agent.

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