htb_reset_fortress

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'vote to reset', but does not explain whether the reset is immediate, requires approval, has side effects, or is reversible. The voting mechanism is opaque, which is critical for a potentially destructive action.

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 extremely terse (four words), but this brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential details. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity; it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

The description lacks completeness given the tool's context. It does not explain the outcome of the vote, the expected behavior, or any dependencies. With no output schema and one parameter, more detail is needed to fully inform the agent.

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%, and the description adds no information about the sole parameter 'fortress_id'. The agent gets no clues on what a valid fortress_id is or how to obtain it, making parameter usage entirely reliant on external knowledge.

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 verb 'vote to reset' and the resource 'fortress instance'. This distinguishes it from sibling reset tools like htb_reset_machine, which likely perform immediate resets. However, 'vote to reset' is somewhat ambiguous as it implies a multi-step process, but the core purpose is communicated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when a vote is needed, or how it differs from other reset tools. This leaves the agent uncertain about the appropriate context for invocation.

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