reset_simulation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say what state is discarded (cooked frames, caches, parameter changes), whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions or setup it needs — all critical for an operation named 'reset'.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps rather than resolving them.

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 state-destroying operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition does far too little. An agent cannot predict consequences or even correctly construct node_path from this text alone.

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 single required parameter node_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is unclear whether the path identifies the simulation container, a subnet, or the node whose state is reset, leaving the only parameter's meaning undocumented.

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 specific verb (reset) and resource (the simulation), so an agent can tell it apart from step_simulation or get_simulation_info. What 'initial state' actually means — frame 0, cleared caches, rebuilt network — is left undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reset versus related tools like clear_cache, step_simulation, or cancel_top_cook, and no preconditions such as whether a simulation must be running. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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