ecu_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the key side effect: the ECU returns to the default session, implying the current diagnostic session and its state are lost. It also flags that the action is consequential enough to warrant user confirmation, though it omits whether the ECU drops communication or how failures surface.

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 in a deliberate order: service/identity, parameter values, consequence plus safety instruction. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant constraint (confirm first) lands last for emphasis.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter's valid values are given. The remaining gap is operational context — required session or security preconditions and what happens on negative response — for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only carries a title and a default of "hard", so the description has to compensate. It enumerates the accepted values (hard, key_off_on, soft, or a hex number), which is exactly what the agent needs to construct a call; it stops short of explaining what each mode actually does to the ECU.

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?

Names the specific UDS service (0x11 ECUReset) and states the concrete effect, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like diagnostic_session_control or tester_present, though the domain vocabulary carries most of the distinction.

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?

"Confirm with the user before resetting" gives a real precondition for invoking it, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never states when a reset is the right call versus alternatives (e.g. session_control to switch sessions) or which prerequisitive state/session the ECU must be in.

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