reset_error

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves key things unstated: whether the drive must be stopped before a fault reset, whether clearing alarms is recoverable, whether a bulk reset of all slaves is risky, and what the operation returns. It identifies the error classes cleared but not the operational consequences or prerequisites.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action and the three fault domains it clears, with no filler. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is only minimally sufficient. The parameter is covered by the schema, but safety prerequisites, scope of impact when resetting all slaves, and post-reset state are missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the important 'if omitted, resets all slaves' behavior. The description itself adds nothing about slaveIndex, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('reset') and enumerates exactly what is reset: slave AL errors, alarms, and CiA 402 drive fault reset. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from diagnostic or control siblings like get_diagnostics or drive_control, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 fault categories imply when the tool applies (after an AL error, alarm, or CiA 402 fault), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no pointer to alternatives such as reading diagnostics first. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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