reset_graph_tool

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool forces a full re-parse and ignores cache, which implies it may be slower and destructive to cached state. However, it does not disclose what happens to existing graph state, required permissions, or potential risks. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, brief sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word serves a purpose. It could be slightly expanded to include parameter details without becoming verbose.

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?

With one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the tool (e.g., what value to provide for 'path') or what the outcome looks like. It only covers the high-level operation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides no explanation of the required 'path' parameter—what it represents (e.g., directory path, file path) or constraints. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 it forces a full re-parse of the codebase while ignoring cache. The verb 'force' and resource 're-parse of the codebase' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like parse_codebase_tool (which may not ignore cache) and clear_cache_tool (which clears but doesn't re-parse). However, explicit differentiation is missing, so it loses a point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_cache_tool or parse_codebase_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or typical use cases. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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