keep_alive

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It correctly discloses that the tool performs a reset (a mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and reports the timeout. However, it does not explain side effects, whether it is safe during program execution, or what happens if the standby timer is unavailable — leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, tightly worded sentence places the primary action first and avoids any filler or repetition. Every part of the description 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the nature of the return value ('report its configured timeout'). It is slightly thin on usage context and output format, but adequate for a simple call.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema shows. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 'Reset' and identifies the exact resource ('stock firmware standby timer'), plus a second clear action ('report its configured timeout'). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from all sibling tools, none of which mention standby timers or keep-alive logic.

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 implies usage — to prevent standby by resetting the timer — but gives no explicit context about when to invoke it, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives. There is no mention of operational scenarios or conditions that would make this tool preferable to others.

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