reset_tracker

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 states the action ('Clear all ticks and reset') but does not disclose that this is destructive, irreversible, or that it may affect user data or protocol settings. The required 'confirm' parameter implies a destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly warn about 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 a single concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the main action. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices important behavioral detail for brevity.

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 reset tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on related data (e.g., protocols, stats), the irreversibility, or the role of the 'confirm' parameter. An agent cannot fully assess the consequences of invoking this tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'confirm' parameter beyond the schema's boolean type. The description does not state that 'confirm' must be true to execute the reset, which is critical for safe invocation. The description adds no semantic value over the raw schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Clear all ticks and reset') and identifies the resource ('tracker'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like show_tracker or show_stats, but the destructive reset intent is evident.

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. The description does not mention that it is destructive, irreversible, or that it requires confirmation, nor does it reference any sibling tools. An agent is left to infer usage context.

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