coco_soft_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a non-destructive soft reset rather than a MAME hard reset, but says nothing about whether emulated state is preserved, whether the emulator must already be running, or what happens to a mounted floppy/loaded state.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded.

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 parameterless reset tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential action and its non-destructive nature, but omits prerequisites (emulator running state) and the effect on other session state that an agent would want before invoking it.

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 the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 ('soft-reset the emulated CoCo'), which an agent can act on directly. It distinguishes soft from hard reset but does not differentiate itself from the other lifecycle siblings (coco_start, coco_stop, coco_load_state).

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The clause 'does not hard-reset MAME' is a scope boundary, not a usage condition, and it never says when a soft reset is preferable to coco_stop/coco_start or coco_load_state.

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