terminal_reset

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

The description discloses that it closes an existing alias and creates a fresh terminal, which is a destructive/mutating action. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: false, implying the tool is not destructive. This directly contradicts the described behavior of closing a terminal, which can kill running processes. Therefore, the description contradicts the annotations, violating transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the operation followed by a brief usage note. It front-loads the key action and adds only essential context. No superfluous wording, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description provides useful context about when to use the tool (after SESSION_DEAD or to reclaim) and outlines the core behavior. However, it omits critical context about the required lease_id parameter, the meaning of 'reclaim', and how the optional cwd parameter behaves relative to the fresh terminal. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so this score reflects the remaining 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (lease_id, alias, cwd). The description only clarifies the meaning of 'alias' (the terminal alias to reuse) but provides no explanation for lease_id or cwd. This is insufficient for the agent to understand all required inputs, especially lease_id which is required and not described.

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 operation: close an existing alias if present, then create a fresh terminal with the same alias. It specifies the resource (terminal) and the action sequence, and distinguishes itself from terminal_create or terminal_close by combining both steps. The usage context 'after SESSION_DEAD or to reclaim' further clarifies its specific role.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use after SESSION_DEAD or to reclaim.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, setting it apart from alternatives like terminal_create or terminal_close. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or mention when not to use it, so it misses a small part of full guidelines.

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