reset_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the mechanism, the side effect of rebooting, the return value, and a hardware compatibility limitation. It could add more about port availability during reset, but it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action, mechanism, return behavior, and limitation are all front-loaded efficiently. 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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key caveat about board wiring. It does not mention whether the port must already be open, which would be useful, but this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema is complete. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reboots the board, explains the mechanism (pulsing DTR/RTS), and states the return behavior (boot output). This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishable from siblings like set_control_lines or write.

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 a clear usage condition: it only works on boards that wire DTR/RTS to reset, and notes that most USB dev boards do. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the prerequisite is stated clearly.

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