guard_session_reset

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description states the tool 'explicitly purges the in-memory token map' — a state mutation that removes tokens. That directly conflicts with a read-only, non-destructive profile, and an agent relying on the annotations could call this expecting a harmless inspection.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with the scoping constraint up front. The 'Zero-Trust Agentic Guard:' branding prefix consumes space without adding operational meaning, but nothing else is wasted.

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 no output schema and an idempotent-looking reset, the description should ideally say what happens to in-flight or subsequent requests after tokens are purged and whether the action is recoverable. It covers what is purged and roughly when, but leaves the post-reset consequences and the 'all' vs 'session_id' interaction unaddressed.

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%, so both 'all' and 'session_id' (including the 'default' fallback) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the target is a session or all sessions, adding no precedence rule for what happens when both 'all' and 'session_id' are supplied.

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 names a specific verb ('purges') and a specific resource ('the in-memory token map'), plus the two scopes (a specific session_id or all sessions). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as guard_session_info, which an agent must choose between.

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?

The phrase 'upon agent task completion' gives a concrete trigger for when to call it, which is more than nothing. However, it names no exclusions and no alternative tools (e.g., inspecting a session via guard_session_info before purging it), leaving the choice between siblings implied.

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