reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral context; it states the main destructive outcome (factory defaults) but does not disclose side effects such as loss of current settings, saved states, or whether the device reboots. The core behavior is clear, but richer operational consequences are absent.

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: a clear one-line purpose statement followed by a single argument specification. It front-loads the core behavior and avoids unnecessary 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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema available, the description supplies the valid device keys and the core operation. It may lack explicit side-effect warnings, but an agent has enough information to select the tool and populate the required argument 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?

The input schema only declares a required string named 'device' with no description or enum. The description compensates by enumerating the exact allowed keys ('arb', 'dmm', 'osc', 'psu'), which is essential for correct invocation. It doesn't explain the meaning of each key, but the keys are self-explanatory given sibling tool prefixes.

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 ('reset') with a clear object ('a device') and outcome ('to factory defaults'), making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set, where no other tool performs resets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke reset versus alternatives such as psu_save/psu_recall or individual configuration setters. The description implies the use case (reverting to factory defaults) but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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