Reboot the Shield

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the playback interruption, the ~1 minute duration, the blocking wait for the device to return, the post-reboot Bluetooth remote check with remediation advice, and the ADB (adb-setup) dependency. That is the behavioral context an agent needs before triggering an irreversible action.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the restriction before the mechanics, and every clause carries information (side effect, duration, post-check, prerequisite). The duration/remote-check sentence is slightly dense, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description still covers the two things an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations: the destructive playback side effect and the ADB prerequisite. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no syntax or format detail the description could add. It correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead spends its words on side effects.

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 ('Restart the Shield') and immediately scopes it against the sibling family: this is a reboot, not the power control offered by set_power or a key press. An agent can pick it apart from set_power/get_status without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use gate ('Only do this when the user asks for a reboot') plus the consequence that selects caution ('it stops whatever is playing'). It does not name the alternative tool to use for plain power-off (set_power), so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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