Resets the traffic-light crossing to its start state so the reasoning protocol can begin from step zero.
Сбросить переход дороги на старт.
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": "reset_crossing"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that state is returned 'to start' and says nothing about what existing crossing state is lost, whether it triggers side effects, or who may invoke it; there is also a mild tension between 'reset to start' and the non-idempotent annotation that the description does not resolve.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is not the problem here; the missing information is scored elsewhere.
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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what the reset affects and what the caller receives afterwards. It conveys only the end state ('start'), leaving an agent unable to predict consequences.
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, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No syntax or argument detail is needed.
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 verb 'reset' plus object 'crossing' is identifiable, and 'to start' names the target state, which is more than a tautology. However, 'crossing' is ambiguous (pedestrian crossing, road crossing, or a simulation entity), and the description never connects it to the traffic-light siblings that clearly belong to the same domain, so an agent can't confidently scope it.
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 statement of when to call this versus check_traffic_light, traffic_light_history, or get_begemot_status, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent must infer the usage scenario entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.