deep-thinker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resets state (destructive behavior) and starts a new session, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what 'fresh' entails (e.g., does it clear all history?). It adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 ('reset') and purpose ('start a fresh reasoning session'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (state resetting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete—it covers the main action and intent. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., confirmation of reset, error cases) to fully guide usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'problem' parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how the problem statement integrates with the reset). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('reset') and the resources ('thought graph and metacognitive state'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'start a fresh reasoning session'—implying a clean slate versus tools like 'think', 'evaluate', or 'graph' which likely operate on existing content.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('start a fresh reasoning session'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'prune' might be for partial cleanup). The guidance is implied but not exhaustive.

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