retroarch_reset

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive nature ('triggers the loaded core's reset routine... Unsaved game progress is lost'), the soft-reset semantics versus power cycle, fire-and-forget behavior with no acknowledgement, and silent UDP drops. Also recommends verification via other tools.

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?

Structured in labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, TRANSPORT, RETURNS) with the core action first. Every sentence provides necessary operational details (reset semantics, destructive effects, verification steps, transport requirements) without redundancy.

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 (missing annotations, no output schema, zero parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: transport protocol, prerequisites, return value, side effects, and verification strategy. It also cross-references sibling tools for follow-up, making it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, it clarifies the return value ('Single line 'Game reset'') and that it is only a send confirmation, which is useful context. Baseline for no params is 4.

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?

Clearly states the function: 'Soft-reset the running game — equivalent to pressing the console's reset button (NOT a power cycle).' Distinguishes from power cycle and mentions alternatives like load state, so it is unambiguous and differentiated from 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?

Explicitly explains when to use: 'Use to start fresh from the game's reset vector.' Also says 'To return to a specific known-good point instead of boot, use retroarch_load_state_current or retroarch_load_state_slot...' This provides clear usage guidance and names alternative tools.

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