ghost_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core state transition: clearing the stop flag and resuming automation. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no stop flag is set, but for a zero-parameter tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect and no wasted words. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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 zero-parameter state-reset tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to use it and what it does. There are no hidden inputs or complex return values an agent would need explained.

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, so the description does not need to document parameter meaning. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is no parameter information to add.

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 ('Resume automation') and a specific resource ('after ghost_stop'), and explicitly mentions clearing the stop flag. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ghost_stop and other ghost_* operations.

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 gives an explicit condition for use: after ghost_stop. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the direct pairing with ghost_stop makes the usage context clear enough for an agent.

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