resetAccessCounts

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by detailing the exact state changes (setting counters to 0, clearing timestamps) and affirming no deletions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is clear and well-structured with separate sections for purpose and usage guidelines. Slightly verbose but efficient; could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 params, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, usage contexts, and side effects. Leaves no relevant gaps.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the action and its effects, adding value beyond the schema.

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 tool resets access-pattern counters for all memories in the current project, specifying it sets access_count to 0 and clears timestamps without deletion. It distinguishes from siblings like forgetMemory or listMemories by focusing on counters rather than storage or retrieval.

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?

Explicitly provides 'WHEN TO CALL' and 'WHEN NOT TO CALL' sections, advising use after major refactors and against use during normal operation where self-correction occurs. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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