shell_reset

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '重置持久化会话（重新启动 PowerShell）' does convey that a restart occurs, letting an agent infer that in-session state (cwd, env vars) is lost, but it never states this side effect explicitly or confirms what remains after 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the action first, then the recovery condition. Nothing to trim.

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-param, no-output-schema utility, the description covers what it does and when to reach for it. The only gap is the unspecified collateral effect on cwd/env state, which matters given the shell_* sibling set.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('重置持久化会话') and clarifies the concrete mechanism (restarting PowerShell), so an agent knows this tears down and restarts the shell session. It is distinguishable from siblings like shell_exec/shell_cwd, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

'用于会话状态异常时恢复' gives one clear trigger condition (abnormal session state), which is reasonable guidance. However, it names no alternative or exclusion — e.g., whether to prefer shell_cd/shell_env_set for smaller fixes before a full reset.

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