reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: the reset is equivalent to pressing BREAK, autoboot holds SHIFT, the session remains valid, and subsequent calls hit the same session. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not mention all side effects like memory clearing, which is implied by 'reset'.

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 four sentences long, each earning its place. It uses clear formatting with line breaks and code spans, and no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds nuance.

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 of this complexity, the description is thorough: it explains the reset semantics, the autoboot option, and session persistence. It covers the essential edge cases and clarifies what makes this reset different from a destructive one. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `autoboot` thoroughly (holds SHIFT, runs !BOOT). `session_id` is implicitly covered by stating it stays valid and identifies the session. While session_id is not explicitly defined as an identifier, the context makes it understandable.

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 'Hard-reset the BBC without destroying the session', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like destroy_machine by explicitly noting the session is preserved, and from run_basic etc. by describing the reset action.

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 implies when to use it: when a reset is needed but the session must remain intact. It explains the autoboot variant with SHIFT+BREAK behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., destroy_machine) or describe when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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