reboot_system

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (`destructiveHint: true`) and not read-only (`readOnlyHint: false`). The description adds the consequence of 'service interruption,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotation. It does not mention other effects like session loss, but the warning is valuable context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a crucial warning. Every word earns its place; there is no filler. It is appropriately minimal for a simple operational 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?

For a destructive reboot tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It states the operation and consequence. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the sibling `halt_system` for context, and clarifying that `confirm` must be true to execute (though the schema covers that). Overall, the information is sufficient for a basic agent, but not as complete as a fully contextual description.

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 schema covers both parameters (`confirm` and `dry_run`) with descriptions, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The description doesn't reference these parameters, but that's acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Reboot') and the target ('the pfSense system'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling `halt_system` tool, which also affects the system's power state. The verb 'reboot' is specific enough to infer the operation, but a direct alternative mention is missing.

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 instead of alternatives like `halt_system` or other restart procedures. The warning about service interruption is a caution, not a usage directive. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., setting `confirm=True`) or scenarios where a reboot is appropriate.

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