reset_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well by explicitly stating that all answer records and review schedules are cleared. This is a clear destructive action, though it stops short of explicitly warning that the action is irreversible or describing what happens afterward.

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 delivers the core destructive action immediately, with a clarifying parenthetical. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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, the description is largely complete: it names the precise resources affected and the intended restart purpose. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, a brief note on irreversibility or confirmation would have made it fully complete for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps; the schema is empty and complete.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 清空所有作答記錄與複習排程 (clear all answer records and review schedule). The parenthetical '重新開始' reinforces the intent, and the destructive nature distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools like get_progress and get_readiness.

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 usage context is implied by '重新開始' (restart), suggesting the tool should be used when a user wants to begin anew. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, mention confirmation requirements, or name any alternatives, so guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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