reset_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what exactly gets cleared (e.g., all history or selective), or any side effects. It lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails (e.g., permanent deletion, reset to empty), the scope of 'conversation memory/history', or any confirmation/response behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it's not lacking in this dimension.

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 verb ('Clear') and resource ('conversation memory/history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings (which appear unrelated), but that's not needed here since siblings are about different domains (architecture, advice, code review).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what context. The description states what it does but offers no usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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