reset_callout_counter

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the effect (counter set to 0), which implies a mutation. It does not mention side effects like whether existing callout numbers change or if any prerequisites exist, but for such a simple reset operation, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 that states the action and the target value. There is no waste, and the core information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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's simplicity (no parameters, a clear reset action, and an output schema present), the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the return value or any prerequisites, but these are not essential for a trivial reset operation. Overall, it is complete enough for the use case.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none are needed. It correctly omits any parameter details.

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 states a clear action (reset) and a specific resource (auto-increment callout counter). It is unambiguous about what it does, and the sibling list includes add_numbered_callout, which makes the counter's purpose implicit. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 when to use it (when you want to restart callout numbering), but provides no explicit guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The context of sibling tools (add_numbered_callout) hints at usage, but the description itself leaves it to inference.

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