reset_sage_session

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'reset the SageMath session state', which implies destruction but does not specify what exactly is cleared, whether running computations are interrupted, whether the action is reversible, or if it affects only the named session. This lack of detail is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 with no redundant phrasing. It starts with the action verb 'reset' and immediately informs about the resource. It could be slightly more structured to include usage context, but as a concise statement of purpose it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 description is incomplete for a session management tool with no annotations. It lacks context about when to reset (as opposed to start/stop), the consequences of resetting (e.g., loss of variables), and how the 'session' parameter affects the operation. Though the schema covers the parameter, the description does not integrate this into a full picture, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 100%, with the only parameter 'session' fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not enhance the agent's understanding of how the 'session' parameter influences the reset behavior beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 a specific action (reset) and resource (SageMath session state) with scope (current MCP session). It distinguishes from sibling session management tools like start, stop, interrupt, and cancel by using 'reset' and 'session state'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start, stop, or interrupt. It merely states what it does without indicating typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a clear gap for an agent deciding between session management tools.

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