Reset emulator

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the concrete consequence ('Unsaved game progress may be lost') and the failure mode when no game is loaded, which is real value beyond the structured flags. It does not cover whether the reset is reversible or what state the emulator ends in.

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 action, then the risk, then the precondition. No filler; every clause conveys usable 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description states the return type (PNG screenshot), and the mutation risk is covered alongside destructive annotations. Adequate for a zero-parameter tool, with only minor gaps about post-reset state.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly introduces no phantom arguments.

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 (hard-resets) and resource (the loaded game), plus the return artifact (PNG screenshot). It is clearly distinguishable from list_roms, load_rom and get_current_screen, though it never explicitly names a sibling or contrast case.

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?

Gives a precondition ('Fails if no game is loaded') which implies the tool only makes sense with an active ROM, but says nothing about when to prefer a reset over control_emulator operations or how it relates to load_rom.

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