legal_reset_accessibility_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive effect (the report is cleared so future views record afresh) and a prerequisite version (cvrt-legal 0.9.0+), which is useful. It does not state whether the reset is reversible or what the response looks like, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, action first, then rationale and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, effect, and a version prerequisite. It is nearly complete, missing only reversibility/return-shape detail.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents 'site' and points to list_sites. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (clear/reset) and resource (the markup repair report), which distinguishes it from the sibling reader legal_get_accessibility_report. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the read/write contrast is inferable.

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?

"e.g. after fixing the source, so new page views record afresh" gives a concrete trigger condition for when to use it. No alternatives or when-not scenarios are named, so it falls short of a 5.

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