reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose exactly what is lost (session values and connection), which is the key behavioral fact for a reset. However, it omits whether the reset is irreversible, what happens to in-flight operations, and what state the kernel is left in, all of which matter for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, and the "eh" typo is a minor quality blemish.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the agent still needs to know what to do after a reset (e.g., relaunch via the launch sibling) and whether subsequent calls will fail. None of that lifecycle context is provided.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Discard") with a specific resource ("kernel state") and clarifies scope with parenthetical detail ("session values and connection"). This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like launch/run/status, though it never explicitly names an alternative and the typo ("eh") slightly mars readability.

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 guidance on when to call reset versus launch or status, nor any preconditions (e.g., whether a kernel must be running first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the parenthetical.

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