reset_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'clears all data', which transparently reveals the destructive nature of the operation. However, it does not mention whether the reset is irreversible or if there are side effects on related state.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word contributes value.

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 this simple tool, the description is adequate: it identifies the action, the destructive nature, and the path schema is fully documented. The presence of an output schema covers return values. Could be improved by stating irreversibility or scope, but not necessary.

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 schema already documents the path parameter with a description ('Project root directory.'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics about how path affects the reset, so it conforms to the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 identifies the action (Reset), the target (project context), and the outcome (default values, clears all data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like init_context (initialization) and reset_project_brain (brain vs context).

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 the tool is for resetting context to defaults but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like init_context or reset_project_brain. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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