vm_reboot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clearly state the main action and that kd and terminals are restored, but it omits the destructive nature of hard reboots and the need to set confirm=true. The schema's confirm parameter hints at destructiveness, but the description itself remains thin on side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and it avoids repeating parameter names or schema details, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 moderately complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description plus the well-detailed input schema is nearly complete. The core behavior is fully described, though explicit usage guidance and a destructive-action warning would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by linking the mode options to soft/hard/kd and by framing reattach_kd and reopen_term as 'bring kd and terminals back,' providing useful semantic context that is not explicit in the parameter names alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Reboot'), the resource ('guest'), and enumerates the available modes ('soft, hard or from the debugger'). It also adds the distinctive effect of bringing kd and terminals back, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like vm_stop, vm_start, and vm_suspend.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as vm_stop/vm_start or kd_attach. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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