Reset the spiking neural network engine to its initial state, clearing all parameters and dynamics for a clean simulation run.
Reset SNN Engine
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "snn_reset"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Reset' implies a state-changing, likely destructive operation, but the description does not say whether it clears all SNN state, whether it is reversible, or whether it interrupts ongoing simulation. This is a notable gap for a reset 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 exceptionally concise at three words and is front-loaded with no filler. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself, so it is efficient but not richly informative.
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-parameter tool this is simple to invoke, but the absence of any note about side effects, reset scope, or relationship to the SNN lifecycle leaves the description incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine the consequences of calling this tool.
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 zero parameters, so the input schema already fully covers invocation needs. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; no parameter documentation is required.
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 'Reset SNN Engine' uses a specific verb and resource, and the action is clearly distinct from sibling tools like snn_step or get_snn_state. It is not a tautology, though it gives no detail on what 'reset' encompasses.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of whether it should be run before or after other operations. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.