reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that halting leaves the core stopped at the reset vector, and that without halt the device will run startup. However, it does not disclose other behavioral effects such as whether the debug session remains attached, whether memory is preserved, or other side effects of resetting the target. Some transparency is provided, but not comprehensive.

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 description is only two sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides just-in-time context about why the halt option matters. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary 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?

The description gives enough context for basic use cases and the schema covers parameters fully. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention what happens to the debug session, whether a reset is destructive, or what the tool returns after triggering the reset. For a hardware-control tool, this leaves some ambiguity about expected side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains both 'halt' and 'strategy' in detail. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, mentioning the halting behavior but not the strategy parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Reset the target device.' It adds the purpose of the reset vector halt, distinguishing it from the sibling 'halt' tool, though it does not explicitly name that alternative. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description gives concrete use cases: reset before flashing or to watch startup run. It implies that reset is useful as an alternative to a simple halt, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose one over the other or mention any exclusions. Context is clear, but alternatives are not explicitly contrasted.

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