Reset the sim

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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond them by revealing exactly what changes: the duck returns to origin in its standing pose, the ball returns to spawn, and the current episode is discarded. This is valuable behavioral context for a destructive tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the reset outcome, the second explains the trigger and rationale. Every clause adds value, with the core action front-loaded and no redundant detail.

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 reset with annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what happens, when to use it, and why it is the fallback. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 tool has 0 parameters and 0 required inputs, so the description carries no parameter-semantics burden. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set, and the description naturally communicates a parameterless call.

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 and resource ('Reset the sim') and specifies the exact resulting state: 'duck back to the origin in its default standing pose, ball back to its spawn'. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinct from sibling action tools like duck_drive or duck_trick.

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 explicitly positions this as the 'escape hatch after a fall' and explains the need with 'there is no stand-up policy yet'. That gives clear trigger conditions. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but no sibling tool provides a reset action, so 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.