reset_workflow_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool clears the session report, starts a fresh record, and creates a new timestamped file per reset. It does not discuss whether old files are preserved or return specifics, but the output schema helps fill that gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a short WHEN TO USE block. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and reset semantics. It could be slightly more explicit about whether previous report files are preserved, but that word 'new timestamped file' implies non-destructive behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional report_file parameter, which is fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already explains the parameter.

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 opens with 'Clear the session workflow report and start a fresh record,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_workflow_report, which reads the report rather than resetting 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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states to call at the start of a new structure-preparation task when a clean report is needed, and explains the rationale (avoiding previous work). It does not name explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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