pursIdeReset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the destructive nature ('Clear all loaded modules'), the prerequisite state ('IDE server must be running'), and the post-action requirement ('run pursIdeLoad again'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like loss of unsaved state or performance impact, which could be relevant for a memory-clearing 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by prerequisite and usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose, prerequisites, usage timing, and follow-up actions. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention about what 'clearing memory' entails operationally (e.g., whether it affects server stability or requires reinitialization), but overall it's highly complete for its complexity level.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on contextual information about when and how to use the tool.

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 specific action ('Clear all loaded modules') and the target resource ('IDE server's memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like pursIdeLoad (loads modules) or pursIdeList (lists modules). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly provides when to use ('when switching projects or after major code changes'), prerequisites ('IDE server must be running'), and a named alternative action ('You'll need to run pursIdeLoad again after this'). This gives comprehensive guidance on context and sequencing.

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