reset

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that a backup is taken before the reset and that the backup path and new settings are returned. Combined with destructiveHint=true, an agent can understand the operation's safety profile. It stops short of stating whether the reset is reversible from that backup or what other state is lost.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and command, then the side effect, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully documents return values (backup path, new settings). Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, so the definition is nearly complete for a zero-parameter mutation; only the exact scope of what is lost is unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument operation and adds no misleading parameter information.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reset the scope to factory defaults') and names the SCPI command (*RST), which pins down the exact operation. It is distinguishable from the sibling restore_setup, which restores a stored backup rather than factory defaults.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive factory-reset semantics, and the note that the setup is backed up first hints at safety context, but the description never says when to choose this over restore_setup or save_setup. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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