Reset a board

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that — hard reset is firmware-dependent — but says nothing about what gets lost on reset (unsaved state, active REPL sessions), whether the call blocks, or what happens when hard reset is unsupported. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the primary action (soft reset) is stated before the conditional variant. The trailing clause 'when the firmware supports hard reset' is slightly vague about what happens otherwise, but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter board-control tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it does, the two modes, and the firmware constraint. The main remaining gap is the absence of any sibling comparison against pico_board_interrupt and pico_board_bootloader, which is the most likely agent mistake given the crowded board-control namespace.

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 coverage is 50%: board_id is well documented in the schema (stable UID from pico_boards_list or a serial device path), while mode has an enum but no schema description. The description compensates partially by explaining that 'hard' is gated on firmware support, but it never states that 'soft' is the default nor what the fallback behavior is when hard reset is unavailable.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('soft-reset' / 'hard-reset' the selected board) and names the two modes, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like pico_board_interrupt or pico_board_bootloader, which also act on a board and could be confused with 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?

Usage is only implied: soft reset is presented as the default action and hard reset as the conditional variant when firmware supports it. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer reset over pico_board_interrupt or pico_board_bootloader, nor any statement of preconditions or consequences that would let an agent choose confidently among the board-control tools.

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