chatgpt_clear_circuit_breaker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral traits: it clears a local safety circuit breaker (a mutation) and it will not access the web (a non-network operation). However, it does not explain what 'clear' entails (e.g., whether it resets persistent state, what side effects occur, or if it is reversible), leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key condition, and every word earns its place. It states the precise action, the prerequisite, and a safety-relevant non-behavior (no web access) without any fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the trigger condition, the action, and that it does not access the web. It could mention what happens after clearing (e.g., whether further user action is needed), but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 only parameter 'confirmed' is fully documented in the schema with a description that mirrors the tool description ('must be manually confirmed by the user'). The tool description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond reinforcing the confirmation condition, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'clear the local safety circuit breaker' (清除本地安全熔断), with the explicit condition that it only happens after manual user confirmation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling chatgpt_circuit_breaker_status by implying status is a read operation while this is a write/reset operation.

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 explicitly states when to use: only after the user has manually confirmed the ChatGPT rate limit prompt has disappeared. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide that this is the right action for clearing a local circuit breaker after a rate limit resolves.

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