reset_time

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('success confirmation') and the no-response behavior for broadcasts, but it does not mention side effects on time-dependent operations or prerequisites like motor connectivity.

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 front-loaded and efficient—purpose, timing guidance, firmware identifier, return behavior, and parameter semantics each appear once without redundant filler. The bracketed firmware note is slightly noisy but not harmful.

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 gives the essential call information and return behavior, but omits edge cases such as invalid motor targets, effects on queued time-based commands, or whether success confirmation differs for broadcast mode. This is adequate for a simple reset command but not fully complete.

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?

The only parameter, motor, is fully explained beyond the schema: alias number, unique ID, or 'all' broadcast, including the caveat that broadcasts produce no responses. The schema provides no description, so the description is essential and complete.

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 identifies a specific action ('Resets the absolute time to zero') and the target resource (the motor's time base). It also adds useful context about when it should be called. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related time commands like time_sync, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 direct placement guidance: 'call this first before issuing any movement commands.' It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative-tool comparisons, but the timing instruction is concrete and actionable.

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