reset_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it lists everything that gets destroyed and notes the side effect that unit variables are reinitialized plus the expression counter reset. It stops short of stating irreversibility or that any unsaved work is lost, but the destructive scope is well conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the cleared-items list, all in efficient sentences. The 'Returns:' block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the definition meaningfully.

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?

A zero-parameter tool with an output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers what is destroyed, the side effects, and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document. No input is required or accepted.

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?

States a specific verb (resets) and resource (SymPy MCP server state) and enumerates exactly what is cleared (variables, functions, expressions, metrics, tensors, coordinate systems, expression counter). No sibling tool does state reset, so the agent can immediately distinguish it from all the compute/introduce tools.

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?

Explicitly says to run it after all tool calls for a given computation are done, to reset for the next computation. This gives clear context for when to invoke it. No alternative reset tool exists to mention, so there is nothing left to disambiguate.

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