bizhawk_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether reset destroys emulator state, what side effects occur, or how it differs behaviorally from emulator_reset. The nature of a reset operation (clearing state) is implied by the name but never disclosed explicitly.

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 very short — one clause. It is not verbose and wastes no words. However, brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, though there is nothing extraneous to cut.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter description coverage. The description does nothing to compensate: no side effects, no parameter semantics, no use guidance. For a wrapper around a potentially state-destroying reset operation, this is severely incomplete.

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 single parameter settle_frames is undocumented in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what settle_frames means (e.g., frames to wait after reset before returning). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema's bare field definition.

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 says 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_reset.' It identifies that this is a wrapper but doesn't specify what the underlying emulator_reset does, what a reset accomplishes, or the scope. The verb 'wrapper' is not a direct action verb, and purpose is implied via indirection to a sibling rather than stated.

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 given about when to use bizhawk_reset versus the direct emulator_reset sibling. The description merely says it's a 'GB-compatible wrapper,' which hints at compatibility context but provides no exclusion or when-to-use guidance. No alternatives are discussed beyond the implicit reference to emulator_reset.

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