Reset this session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond these: it clears sub-runs, appends a marker to history while preserving prior entries (critical non-destructive-to-history detail), and details the shared-app refusal behavior. This meaningfully augments the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with behavioral details and usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place—purpose, side effects, audit-trail semantics, and the shared-app limitation are each addressed without redundancy. Formatting with the reset marker example is illustrative, not wasted.

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, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers side effects, history semantics, and usage constraints. The only minor gap is not describing the success/failure return behavior, but with no output schema and clear side-effect documentation, this isn't a significant omission. It sits below a 5 because it doesn't describe what the client receives upon success.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics (there are none), and the effectively 100% schema coverage (empty schema) requires no compensation. The score reflects the strong baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 resets the session's FSM to its entrypoint, with specific verbs and a distinct resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings—read_resource, step, fork_at, fork_from_past, list_resources—by focusing on resetting state rather than reading, stepping, or forking.

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 explains when it's appropriate (factory mode) and explicitly when not to use it (shared-app mode), naming the alternative (per-session isolation/factory mode). However, it doesn't name a specific sibling tool as the alternative, which would push it to a 5.

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