reset_thinking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool clears and starts fresh, which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral details such as whether this action is reversible, what data might be lost, or any side effects on other tools or sessions.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core action and purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails, what 'start fresh' means in practice, or the expected outcome, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and effects.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary details.

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 action ('Clear' and 'start fresh') and the target ('current thinking session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sequential_thinking' or 'get_thinking_summary', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage when wanting to reset a thinking session, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sequential_thinking' or 'instance_cleanup', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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