nanokvm_power_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by outlining the exact sequence: force power off via a 5-second button hold, wait the specified duration, then power on with a short press. It also explains the default delay and its rationale. It does not, however, warn about potential data corruption or other consequences of a hard power cycle.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, the recommended use case, a numbered sequence, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and the format makes it easy to scan. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Despite its simple parameter set, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, why it exists, the exact button-hold behavior, the parameter with default and tuning advice, and the return type. The output schema also documents return values, but the description's 'Returns' line reinforces it. This is a complete, self-contained explanation.

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 input schema only provides a type and default for off_duration_ms, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning, default behavior (3000ms for clean power cycle), and guidance for longer values on slow storage. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Power cycle the target machine (force off, wait, power on).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nanokvm_power by describing a multi-step reset sequence rather than a simple on/off action. The phrase 'recommended way to reset a Raspberry Pi 5' further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: 'recommended way to reset a Raspberry Pi 5 since it has no hardware reset button.' It also offers parameter guidance for slow storage (use 5000+ ms). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools such as nanokvm_power for simple on/off operations.

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