cmmn-reset_sentry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool clears satisfied_parts and resets state, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether re-evaluation is triggered automatically), permissions, or return format. Basic disclosure is present but incomplete.

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 with no extraneous information. It front-loads the action and purpose efficiently.

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 simple reset tool with no output schema, the description explains the state change and use case. However, it lacks details on the response (e.g., confirmation, any automatic re-evaluation) which a single-parameter tool might need for full agent understanding.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameter description ('Sentry ID (@rid format)'), and the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool resets a sentry to unsatisfied state and clears satisfied_parts, which is a specific action distinct from siblings like cmmn-mark_sentry_satisfied or cmmn-evaluate_sentry. The verb 'reset' and resource 'sentry' are well-defined.

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 description includes 'Used when re-evaluation is needed' which gives a context of use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like cmmn-mark_sentry_satisfied. The guidance is minimal but adequate.

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