boot_disc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs a soft reset, preserves the running BBC's state, blocks until the boot banner reappears, and returns only after `!BOOT` is running or finished. This is detailed, accurate, and gives strong expectations for behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds necessary information: the equivalence, the workflow rationale, and the blocking/return behavior. No filler or redundant words.

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?

The description richly covers purpose, equivalence, state preservation, blocking behavior, and return condition, which is substantial for a complex tool. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The only clear gap is per-parameter explanation, and the description relies on the sibling `load_disc` for that, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not explain `disc`, `drive`, `mutable`, `writeable`, or `session_id`. The phrase 'same parameters as `load_disc`' delegates to a sibling tool rather than adding meaning within this description, leaving the agent to cross-reference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mount a disc and SHIFT+BREAK autoboot it in one call.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is equivalent to `load_disc` followed by `reset(autoboot=True)`, so an agent can clearly tell what unique operation this tool performs.

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 states this is for the common 'load and run' workflow and names the alternative composition (`load_disc` followed by `reset(autoboot=True)`). It also notes 'same parameters as `load_disc`', giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings.

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