wow_reset

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. It mentions returning the initial decoded game state but does not describe side effects (e.g., clearing progress, ending previous episodes), error conditions, or prerequisites. The behavioral traits are implied but under-documented.

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 two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: first states the action and return, second provides an example parameter value. This is ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should elaborate on the returned 'initial decoded game state' to help the agent understand the output. It only says 'decoded game state' without structure or content hints. Also, it does not explain optional parameters like seed (though schema covers it), error cases, or the exact meaning of 'episode'. The description is insufficiently complete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing all nine player_class examples, which is more explicit than the schema's 'one of the nine classes'. No other parameters gain additional meaning, but the player_class list is a concrete improvement.

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 tool's function: 'Start a NEW episode (or restart after one ends). Returns the initial decoded game state.' This provides a specific verb ('start' or 'restart') and resource ('episode/game state'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wow_step (which advances the game) and wow_play (which automates).

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 when to use the tool ('Start a NEW episode' and 'restart after one ends'), providing context for initialization. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like wow_state for inspecting state without resetting. The guidance is present but minimal.

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