kiosk_reset_defaults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool resets the display, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires admin permissions, if changes are irreversible, what 'defaults' entail, or potential side effects (e.g., clearing custom settings). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('reset'), and every word ('display', 'defaults', 'starter scenes') adds necessary context without fluff. This is optimally concise for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive reset with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'defaults' include, how 'starter scenes' are defined, the response format, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is insufficient.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to document. It efficiently avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('reset') and target ('display'), specifying what gets reset ('to defaults and starter scenes'). It distinguishes from siblings like kiosk_set_theme or kiosk_set_playlist by focusing on restoration rather than configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as kiosk_get_status, which is informational.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after misconfiguration), exclusions (e.g., not for temporary changes), or direct alternatives among siblings like kiosk_set_theme for custom themes. The context is implied but not explicit.

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