Reboot

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's burden is lower. It adds meaningful behavioral context: controlled reboot with optional delay and dry-run capability. No contradictions with annotations. Slightly higher than baseline due to added value.

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 two sentences, no wasted words, and the most critical information (purpose and sibling differentiation) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 action tool with no output schema and well-handled parameters, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (delay, dry-run, confirmation token via schema). Annotations signal destruction. Could mention network interruption but still adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description mentions delay and dry-run but does not add significant semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Trigger a controlled router reboot with an optional delay' and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly recommending this over run_command due to the deny list. This meets the 'specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool instead of run_command for reboots — run_command's deny list blocks /system reboot*'. It also mentions dry-run support, which clarifies safe testing usage.

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