prepare_for_new_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden on behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about side effects, state changes, or what 'preparing' involves. The agent cannot infer whether this resets context, clears memory, or performs other actions, making it highly opaque.

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 very short (two sentences) and the second sentence is directly useful. However, the first sentence essentially duplicates the tool name without adding new information, so not every sentence earns its keep; it is concise but somewhat wasteful.

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?

The tool is low in complexity (no parameters) and has an output schema, so return value details may not be needed. However, the description omits crucial behavioral context—what 'preparing' does to the conversation state—leaving a significant gap in understanding when and why it should be invoked.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information. Per guidance, 0 params baseline is 4; the description aligns with the schema and adds no further need for documentation.

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 'Instructions for preparing for a new conversation' largely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool actually does. It lacks a concrete verb revealing the action or effect, and does not distinguish from siblings beyond a general 'preparing' notion.

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 explicitly states 'This tool should only be called on explicit user request,' providing a clear when-to-use condition and an implicit exclusion (do not call automatically). It does not mention alternatives, but the condition is direct and useful.

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