Reset conversation

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

The description explicitly says 'Clear the stored transcript,' which is a destructive operation on stored data. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: clearing/deleting a stored transcript should be marked as destructive. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations receives a score of 1.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its purpose without filler. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent model of concise tool documentation.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational effect: clearing the transcript and resetting the next ask_agent call. It does not mention the return value or failure modes, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap. The contradictory destructiveHint annotation slightly reduces overall confidence.

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 zero parameters to document, so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Clear'), names the resource ('stored transcript'), and explains the direct consequence for the next ask_agent call. This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools like get_last_trace and get_agent_card.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs a brand-new conversation and should not carry over the previous transcript. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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