reset_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the destructive consequence ('discarding any pending proposals'). It still omits whether the reset is reversible, idempotent, or how the voided proposals surface afterward.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and its side effect front-loaded ahead of the usage condition. 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?

For a zero-argument reset with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, its destructive effect, and when to invoke it. Only post-reset state or reversibility is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reset the architecture agent session') and adds the concrete effect ('discarding any pending proposals'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the reset_stage_profiling/reset_buffer_metrics siblings by scope, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use when the user wants to start over or abandon the current ideation cycle.' It covers context but offers no exclusions or named alternatives among the many propose_*/resolve_proposal siblings.

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