Power Reboot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add real signal by labeling this a dangerous write operation, warning the agent that the call is disruptive. However, it omits key behavioral facts: that it terminates active sessions, causes downtime, and is irreversible while in progress.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.

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 destructive, session-terminating machine-level operation with no annotations and no sibling differentiation. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description says nothing about the consequences of the reboot, session impact, or how host/profile target the device.

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 100%, so host, port, scheme and profile are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: rebooting the NAS. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never names the closely related sibling power_poweroff, so the agent must infer the distinction between reboot and shutdown from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose reboot over power_poweroff, no prerequisite or confirmation framing, and no note about what state the NAS returns in. The '(危险写操作)' tag signals risk but not usage context.

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