Reset Circuit Breaker (Supervised)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the meaningful target state (HALF_OPEN), which is not derivable from annotations or schema. However, it does not describe consequences of a bad reset, permission/supervision requirements, or what happens after HALF_OPEN.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the action and its outcome front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the resulting state so the agent knows what the call produces. For a 3-param mutation tool the coverage is nearly sufficient, with only post-reset behavior and supervision requirements left unstated.

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 coverage is 67% and the two required parameters are documented in the schema. The description echoes the 'justification' and 'root-cause evidence' requirement but adds no format, syntax, or length guidance beyond the schema's minLength=10 and never mentions sessionId or format. Baseline 3 for partially covered params.

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?

Specific verb (reset) plus resource (open Circuit Breaker) and an explicit resulting state (HALF_OPEN). It distinguishes itself from siblings like kilo_sentinel_status or kilo_trace_root_cause without needing the schema.

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 implies the trigger condition ('an open Circuit Breaker') and that evidence is required, but never states when not to use it, what prerequisites must hold, or which sibling to consult first. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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