bmc_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the destructive action (clears all counter values to zero) and the purpose (fresh measurement). However, it does not mention side effects or necessary conditions, though for a simple reset tool this is adequate.

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 concise with two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and result (confirmation). It could mention more about the return format, but for a simple reset it is sufficiently complete.

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 no parameters (0 params), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is given.

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 all BenchMark Counters to zero for a fresh measurement. The verb 'reset' and resource 'BenchMark Counters' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like bmc_read or bmc_configure.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for a fresh measurement), but it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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