Clear context (tier-3 reset)

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that rules and ledger are kept by default, but it does not state what happens to turns, boundaries, or other context, nor whether the reset is reversible or requires specific authorization. The 'hard reset' phrasing implies destructive behavior without detailing consequences.

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 extremely concise, containing only two short sentences, which is appropriate from a verbosity standpoint. However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic, and the terseness detracts from its utility.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and a schema with 0% description coverage, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain the return format, side effects on other context components, or how sessionId influences the reset, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 schema has two parameters (keepRules, sessionId) with 0% description coverage. The description's mention of keeping rules and ledger by default partially maps to keepRules but does not explain the boolean semantics or what happens when false. The sessionId parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving its purpose and format unclear.

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 ('Hard reset turns and boundaries') and identifies the resource, making the basic purpose clear. However, the term 'turns and boundaries' is somewhat ambiguous without context, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like context_compact or context_trim beyond the 'hard' qualifier.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context_compact or context_trim, nor are exclusions or assumptions mentioned. The description only implies usage for a hard reset without situating it among sibling tools.

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