nanokvm_hdmi_reset

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'reset', but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., temporary video loss, renegotiation time, or whether it is a soft/hard reset). This lacks the transparency needed for a hardware-affecting action.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the primary purpose and a concrete triggering condition. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note that the reset may interrupt the current display session, but this is a minor gap.

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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 ('Reset the HDMI connection') with a specific resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like 'nanokvm_hdmi_status' (status checking) and 'nanokvm_reset_hid' (different interface).

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?

It provides a clear use case ('Useful if video is not displaying correctly') that tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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