reset_target

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description goes well beyond, disclosing the non-destructive reset semantics (flash kept), the allow_reset permission gate with the permission_denied result, the resource_busy conflict and its resolution, and the specific failure modes reset_failed and timeout with debugger.timeout_s.

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 with the core action and its non-destructive semantics, then preconditions, alternative, and failure codes in dense, zero-waste sentences. Every clause is actionable; nothing is filler.

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 single-parameter reset tool with no output schema, the description covers outcome semantics, prerequisites, session conflict handling, alternatives, and error codes — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single 'mode' enum is fully documented in the schema (run/halt/init with the not_supported caveat), so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (reset) and resource (the board) via the in-circuit debugger/programmer, and immediately clarifies the key semantic: firmware restarts but flash is kept. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling probe_target ('to check the board without a reset').

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: it is refused with resource_busy while a debug session is open, and directs the agent to call debug_stop_session first. It also names the alternative (probe_target) and the condition that selects it, plus the allow_reset prerequisite.

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