emulator_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool reboots the core (a destructive-ish action) and mentions settling with neutral input, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the reboot clears saved state, memory, or baselines, or whether it's safe to interrupt.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It's economically written with no filler, though it could arguably add a second sentence explaining the settle behavior more precisely without much cost.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero annotations, the description provides the core purpose and one parameter's meaning ('N frames') but leaves target undefined and gives no return/state disclosure. For a side-effecting reboot operation this is borderline adequate but has noticeable gaps, especially given the two similar backends (emulator vs bizhawk) present in siblings.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. 'target' (default 'gb') is vaguely alluded to by the term 'core' but never explicitly explained as selecting the emulator platform. 'settle_frames' is partially explained by 'for N frames' in the description, but neither parameter's meaning, constraints, or format is spelled out.

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 specific verb+resource ('Reboot the emulator core') and adds meaningful detail about settling with neutral input for N frames. While it clearly describes what it does, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling reset-like tools (bizhawk_reset exists).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like bizhawk_reset, emulator_save_state/load_state, or create_baseline. The sibling list contains a very similar 'bizhawk_reset' tool which represents a distinct backend, but nothing distinguishes when to pick emulator_reset over it.

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