power_cycle

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 blocking behavior, timeout constraint, and guarantees power restoration even if the wait is interrupted. It also notes off_seconds range. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema; however it omits error conditions or what happens on failure, but output schema may cover returns.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line definition, followed by use-case context, a timeout warning, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds information; no filler, though it is longer than the minimal example.

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 tool with no annotations and minimal schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, blocking/timeout behavior, interruption guarantee, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains both parameters: outlet_id sourced from list_outlets, and off_seconds as a range (0.5 to 300) and as the powered-off duration. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Power-cycle whatever is plugged into an outlet: switch it off, wait, switch it back on.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_outlet or set_outlet by naming the off-wait-on sequence and intended use for rebooting hardware.

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?

It states the intended scenario: 'Intended for rebooting hardware attached to a smart plug, such as a development board.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like toggle_outlet or set_outlet. Thus clear context but no explicit exclusionary guidance.

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