reset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully distinguishes what is destroyed (namespace contents) from what survives (the session), which is the key risk distinction for a destructive tool. It says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or confirmation requirements, leaving real gaps.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the action comes first and the retention caveat plus sibling pointer follow. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 destructive, no-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core destroy/preserve semantics but omits irreversibility and any return indication. Adequate to call correctly, not complete enough to predict consequences.

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 100% and the single optional 'session' parameter is fully documented there, including its default and persistence behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Empty a session's namespace' says exactly what the operation does to what. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling tool 'drop' by noting the session is kept, though the contrast is compressed into a parenthetical.

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 clause 'but keep the session (see drop)' points the agent at the alternative and implicitly defines when to pick this over drop (you want the session retained). It does not spell out explicit exclusions or prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.

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