reachy_reconnect

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral effects. 'Try to reconnect' gives only the intent and does not explain consequences: whether it is safe, whether it blocks, whether it affects the robot's state, or what happens if already connected. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that mutates connection 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?

The dscription is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could be slightly improved by removing the hedging 'Try', but for a zero-parameter tool it is concise and to the point.

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, no output schema, and no parameter documentation burden, the description should explain when to call it and what to expect. It only states intent. Given the sibling set includes status checks and wake/sleep operations, an agent needs more context to know when reconnect is the right call and what it actually does.

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 has zero parameters and the schema documents all of them trivially. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't contradict or confuse the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 dscription states a specific action — reconnect — and a target resource — robot demon. This clearly undestands the tool's purpose and distingishes it from siblings such as status, wake_up, or move_head. Even though it does not name an alternative, the action is unique among the siblings.

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 about when to use this tool instead of others. It does not mention detecting a lost connection, checking status first, or any prerequisite conditions. The only implication is that 'reconnect' means use it after connection failure, but that is left to inference.

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