remote_session_reset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the default path drops queued command/result data and the in-flight marker while preserving the session key and listener, and that rotate=true kills the old key, disconnects the listener, and forces the user to paste a new one-liner. It also notes the tool returns the new runner one-liner.

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?

Front-loads the default behavior, then the rotate branch, then the when-to-use guidance. It is dense but every clause earns its place by describing a distinct behavioral consequence or selection condition; there is no filler.

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-optional-param recovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: default vs rotate semantics, destructive consequences, the returned value, and the exact conditions that justify invocation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by contrasting the default no-argument behavior with rotate=true and spelling out the user-visible consequences of rotation (key dies, listener disconnects, reconnect required). That is meaningful added semantics rather than a restatement.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Recover a wedged remotify session') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling remote_exec by explaining that remote_exec normally auto-recovers. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for and how it differs from the other two siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Normally NOT needed: remote_exec auto-recovers from stale state by itself') and the precise conditions that select it (repeated [busy] for a command never issued despite same-args retries, or an explicit user request to reset/rotate). It names the alternative tool and the triggering symptom.

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