reset_chaos_stats

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a reset operation. The description adds value by clarifying that it resets counters without affecting configuration, enhancing context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential usage guidance.

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 0-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is complete enough. It lacks output details, but since there's no output schema, this is a minor gap in an otherwise well-rounded description.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document.

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 specific action ('reset'), target resource ('chaos injection statistics counters'), and scope ('to zero without changing the active chaos configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_chaos_config' or 'set_chaos_config'.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to start fresh measurement after modifying chaos rules,' providing clear context and distinguishing it from alternatives like 'reset_verification' or other management tools.

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