reboot_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: the configuration is lost, the LXI/USB connection may drop (~30 seconds), and it is not the same as `reset` (*RST). These are strong safety and operational details. It does not mention required permissions or whether the operation can be interrupted, leaving some minor gaps.

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 compact and front-loads the essential action and SCPI command, followed by behavioral consequences and a key disambiguation. Every sentence is purposeful and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema exists (so return-value explanation is not needed), and the description covers the main behavioral traits (configuration loss, connection drop, distinction from *RST). However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over other system tools, which would improve completeness in a large toolset.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description doesn't need to describe inputs.

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 states a specific verb (reset/restart) and resource (instrument/system) and includes the underlying SCPI command (:SYSTem:RESet), which unambiguously identifies the operation. It goes further to differentiate from the sibling tool `reset` (*RST), making the distinction explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description contrasts with `reset` (*RST) operationally, but this is a clarification of an unrelated tool rather than a usage recommendation. An agent would not know from this description when a reboot is preferable to other system-recovery siblings like `clear_status` or `self_test`.

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