Think Reset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the irreversible nature ('⚠️ Irreversible. All thoughts will be lost') and the auto-reset condition. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like session state changes or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, bulleted usage guidelines, a warning, and a note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness: purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral warnings. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about what happens after reset (e.g., empty session state), but the 'start fresh' implication is reasonably clear.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool, though it doesn't add semantic value beyond the schema (which is fine given no parameters exist).

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Clear thinking session and start fresh'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'think' (add thoughts), 'think_batch' (batch add), 'think_done' (end session), and 'think_recall' (retrieve thoughts). It precisely identifies the resource (thinking session) and action (reset).

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?

Explicit usage guidelines are provided: 'Use when: - Starting a NEW problem - Previous chain is irrelevant'. This clearly states when to use this tool versus continuing with existing thoughts, and the 'Note: Auto-resets on thought #1' offers additional context about default behavior, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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