reset_drive_fault

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the zero-setpoint hold, the rising-edge-then-readback procedure, failure when fault conditions remain, and the explicit no-automatic-retry policy. The write semantics are consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by the procedure, the safety constraints, and the failure behavior; every sentence carries information. It is a dense single paragraph with no visual separation of preconditions versus procedure, which slightly reduces scannability.

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?

For a mutation tool, the description covers preconditions, side-effect posture, and failure handling, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The one real gap is that the connection parameters are neither described here nor in the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on two parameters (port, transport), the description must carry the explanatory burden but is completely silent on both — no mention of what port means or when to choose selected_tcp versus serial. The MAC verification it mentions is not even an input parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send a rising edge on the PC fault reset bit and read back to confirm the fault is cleared. The trigger condition ('用户要求故障复位时') plus the explicit constraints (no control request, no run command) make it easy to distinguish from siblings such as execute_drive_run or stop_drive_pc_control.

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?

It names the triggering situation (user requests a fault reset) and the preconditions that must hold (MAC verified, drive not running). It also states clear exclusions — do not request control, do not send run commands — though it never names a sibling alternative to use when the fault condition persists.

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