retry_circuit_reset

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'reset', implying a state change, but does not specify if it is idempotent, if it can fail, or what side effects occur. Lacks safety and idempotency details for a mutation operation.

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 a single concise sentence with a category prefix. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative within the same length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, state mutation, no output schema visible) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough context to use it safely.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanation for the 'name' parameter. The description does not clarify that 'name' is the identifier of the circuit breaker. With no schema descriptions, the tool's documentation fails to convey what the parameter represents.

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 action 'reset' on a 'circuit breaker' to a specific state ('closed/normal'). It distinguishes from siblings like retry_circuit_call, retry_circuit_create, and retry_circuit_status which handle different operations on circuit breakers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for proper usage. It assumes the agent knows the circuit breaker pattern well. The description does not mention when a reset is appropriate (e.g., after a timeout or manual decision).

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