mock_reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly uses the adverb 'destructively' to warn about irreversible effects, and specifies that it resets to backing-store defaults. This provides key transparency about the operation's impact, though it does not detail side effects beyond mappings.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the critical word 'destructively'. Every word contributes meaning: it identifies the action, scope, and target defaults. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: it resets runtime mappings, and it is destructive. The sibling tools (mock_create, mock_delete, request_clear) provide additional context, but the description itself is self-sufficient for this simple operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. No parameter explanations are needed, and the description correctly omits them. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool with full schema coverage earns a baseline of 4.

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 ('reset') and resource ('runtime mappings'), and clarifies the target state ('configured WireMock backing-store defaults'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like mock_create, mock_update, and mock_delete, as it performs a bulk reset to defaults.

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 implies the tool is used to restore all runtime mappings to defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives (e.g., deleting individual mappings) or provide any exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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