debug_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the two-mode behavior of the halt flag and that a new target state is returned, but it says nothing about side effects (RAM/peripheral state loss, whether breakpoints survive the reset) or permissions — material for a state-changing target operation.

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 one-line purpose followed by tight Args/Returns sections, with no wasted prose. The docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose but each line carries information.

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 needn't be detailed, and the description still summarizes them as 'New target state'. Combined with the parameter explanations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only side-effect disclosure 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: session_id's provenance is stated and halt is defined precisely for both values, including that false is the default and what 'true' means operationally (halt at the reset vector).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Reset the target (system reset)'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like debug_halt, debug_resume, and debug_step. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces, but the operation is self-evidently different from the other debug tools.

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?

It states the prerequisite for session_id ('Session ID from debug_session_start') and explains the two operating modes, including the concrete use case for the halt path ('startup code inspection'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a pointer to alternatives such as debug_halt for a pure stop.

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