soft_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's an emergency action ('Emergency stop'), has immediate effects ('stops all motion and spindle immediately'), and requires confirmation ('Requires confirm=true'). It doesn't mention side effects like resetting other settings or recovery procedures, but covers the critical safety aspects.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Emergency stop — soft reset the controller'), followed by critical details in two concise sentences. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is largely complete. It explains the emergency context, immediate effects, and confirmation requirement. It could mention post-reset state or recovery steps, but covers the essential safety and operational aspects well.

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 the schema already documents the 'confirm' parameter. The description adds value by explaining why the parameter exists ('Requires confirm=true to execute emergency stop'), providing context beyond the schema's technical description. With only 1 parameter, this is sufficient for a high score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('soft reset', 'stops all motion and spindle immediately') and identifies the resource ('controller'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'feed_hold' (temporary pause) or 'spindle_control' (manual control) by emphasizing the emergency nature and immediate stop.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Emergency stop') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true'). It implies when not to use it (non-emergency situations) by contrasting with siblings like 'feed_hold' for pauses or 'spindle_control' for normal operations.

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