computer.reset_emergency_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the tool clears a previously triggered emergency stop state, but it does not mention any side effects, such as whether normal computer interaction is restored immediately or what happens if no emergency stop is active.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word contributes meaningful context.

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 zero-parameter utility tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operation: clearing a previously triggered emergency stop. It could add a bit more context about the effect of resetting the stop, but the tool is simple enough that nothing critical 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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately adds nothing about parameters, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clear') with a specific resource ('a previously triggered emergency stop'), making the action and scope immediately obvious. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'emergency_stop' by describing the opposite operation.

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 phrase 'previously triggered' gives clear contextual guidance: this tool should be used when an emergency stop is already active. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a zero-parameter reset paired with an obvious sibling, the context is sufficient.

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