schedule_reboot

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it checks existing schedules, respects the force flag, and dry_run shows what would be done. The reboot_at format is specified. However, it does not mention success/failure outputs or side effects.

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 with a clear opening and bullet-pointed args. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not explain returns. It covers input parameters and behavioral logic well. Missing minor details like post-scheduling confirmation, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds rich meaning for all 5 parameters: hostname must exist in config.ini, reboot_at format, dry_run default and effect, force clears existing schedule, config_path path handling. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Schedule device reboot at a specified time.' The verb 'schedule' and resource 'device reboot' are specific, and no sibling tool offers similar scheduling, so it distinguishes well.

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 context about existing schedules and force behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied but lacks explicit exclusions.

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