new_vision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the critical behavioral consequence—'Existing conversation history is lost'—which is important and valuable. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the current state, whether this affects sibling tools, rate limits, or auth requirements. It covers the most critical destructive impact but omits other behavioral details.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste. First line states purpose, second gives the trigger condition, third flags the destructive consequence. Every sentence earns its place; effectively front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, and the key side effect (history loss). Given low complexity, it's adequately complete. The output schema presumably covers the return value, so no need to explain that here.

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 (schema coverage 100% baseline for no-param tools). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline 4 for no-param tools applies here, and the description appropriately remains silent on parameters.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Force a fresh Gemini Live session' and explains why you'd call it (reset stale/erroring connection). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings, which are all file/resource-based container operations, by being the session-reset tool. Purpose is reasonably specific.

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 clear context on when to use it: 'Call this to reset the connection if it's stale or returns errors.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable, distinguishing it from the file/resource container tools among siblings.

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