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 state that it kills processes and removes locks/state files, which signals destructive behavior. However, it omits key behavioral facts for a destructive tool: whether anything is irreversible, whether it terminates user processes or only stuck ones, and whether a re-index is required afterward.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does, the second front-loads when to use it. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant content comes first.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is behavioral: the aftermath (does indexing need to be re-run?) and the irreversibility/permission profile of a destructive reset are not addressed.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is documented in the schema as the project root directory. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb (reset) plus resource (state) and enumerates the concrete actions performed: killing stuck re-index processes, removing stale locks, and cleaning state files. It is far more informative than the bare name, though it never names the closely related sibling clear_index, so an agent must infer the distinction from the action list.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this to fix issues like stuck indexing, lock conflicts, or corrupted state.' That is clear positive guidance for selecting the tool, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. clear_index or reindex_changed_files) for when a plain re-index would suffice.

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