Reset world

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the load and it does well: it discloses the destructive side effect (autopilot off) and yields exact post-state coordinates. It stops short of saying whether other world state (obstacles, tapes, running programs) is also cleared, which matters for a tool named 'reset_world'.

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, zero filler, with the resulting pose front-loaded and the side effect appended. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

A parameterless, no-output tool needs little more than target state plus side effects, both of which are present. The only real gap is scope: whether 'reset' extends beyond rover pose and light position to programs, tapes, or obstacles.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The coordinates given are hardcoded state, not inputs, and are correctly presented as such.

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 concrete verb ('put back') plus the exact resources affected (rover, light) and the literal target values (120, 265, heading 0°; 690, 70). No sibling tool resets world pose, so an agent can identify this instantly without opening a schema.

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 only implied by the verb 'reset' – it never says when to prefer this over manually calling drive/turn/move_light, nor when a reset is undesirable (e.g. mid-program). The note that autopilot is turned off hints at one precondition but is not framed as guidance.

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