restart_equipment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('restart') and default target, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this causes service interruption, authentication requirements, rate limits, success/failure indicators, or typical completion time. For a potentially disruptive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact and constraints.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 remote device control operation with potential service impact), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information about what happens during/after execution, error conditions, authentication needs, and response format. For a tool that could disrupt network connectivity, this level of documentation creates significant uncertainty for safe agent invocation.

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% (deviceId parameter fully described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the optional nature ('by default') and clarifying the default target ('primary gateway device'), which provides context beyond the schema's technical specification. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid deviceId format or source, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 ('remotely restart') and target ('Xfinity modem or router'), with additional specificity about default behavior ('restarts the primary gateway device by default'). It distinguishes from siblings like check_outages or get_usage_details by focusing on device control rather than information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-existent siblings like 'reboot_equipment' or 'power_cycle_device'.

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 implies usage context through 'remotely restart' and the default behavior clause, suggesting this is for troubleshooting or maintenance scenarios. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to restart vs. check outages first), prerequisites, or warnings about service interruption. The sibling tools are all informational, so no direct alternatives exist, but guidance on pre-checks would be helpful.

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