reset_runtime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('wipe all state'), specifies what is affected ('variables, imports, and mounted tables'), and mentions restarting the session. It could have added more about irreversibility or impact on running work, but the core behavioral transparency is strong.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and its effects, the second gives the usage. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Reset', avoids fluff, and every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose, effects, and use case. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 explicitly states the action ('Reset the runtime'), the specific resource ('Spark session'), and the scope ('wipe all state — variables, imports, and mounted tables'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like run_code, run_sql, or mount_table.

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 guidance on when to use ('Use to start from a clean slate'), which implies a scenario where the user needs to clear all state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage 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.