gh_reset

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, and the description adds the specific behavior that the cached solution gets cleared. This goes beyond a generic 'reset' by naming what is affected, though it does not clarify whether the definition or canvas contents themselves are also cleared.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the action and its main effect.

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-argument tool with an output schema and annotations already marking it destructive, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly names the action and target, though it could have clarified that it only clears the cached solution and does not delete the Grasshopper definition.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter-level clarification is needed.

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 names a specific action ('Reset') and a target ('the canvas'), with a clarifying parenthetical ('clear cached solution') that tells the agent what the reset actually does. It is distinguishable from siblings like gh_new_canvas or gh_run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those tools.

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 phrase 'clear cached solution' implies the tool is for situations where a stale or cached Grasshopper solution must be discarded. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer gh_reset over related alternatives such as gh_new_canvas, gh_run, or gh_open_file.

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