reset_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the two clearing modes and scopes to 'this project', but stops short of explicitly noting irreversible destruction or permission requirements. The word 'wipe' implies destructiveness, but explicit disclosure would strengthen transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately explaining the parameter options. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, and project scope. It doesn't mention return values or side effects beyond clearing, but these are not critical given the schema richness. A small improvement would be an explicit 'cannot be undone' note.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds slight context (clears just that one vs. wipe everything) but essentially restates the schema. Minimal extra value beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('tracked attempt history'), fully distinguishing it from siblings like report_attempt and loop_status. It also explains the intended outcome (no longer flagged as a repeat).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool and how to choose between the two parameters (error_signature for one, clear_all=true for everything). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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