system_reboot

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses specific behavioral consequences: guest disconnection, dependency on configured autostart, and session lock persistence with an explicit unlock requirement. This adds real operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then gives the essential caveats and follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the most critical operational warnings and follow-up action needed. However, it omits the semantics of force and delay_seconds, and with no output schema, there is no information about expected results or failure behavior. This leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 33%, and the description does not explain the force or delay_seconds parameters. The schema provides names, types, and defaults but not their meaning or effect. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 action and target: 'Reboot Windows 98.' This clearly identifies the operation and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like system_shutdown or qemu_vm_restart, but the Windows 98 specificity and lock behavior make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 clear operational guidance: it disconnects the guest, requires autostart for recovery, and mandates calling vm_unlock afterward. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, but the context and follow-up requirements are strong.

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