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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what finishing a run does, whether it ends an active session, persists data, affects subsequent recording tools, or has side effects. The agent is left entirely uninformed.

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 short, but brevity is not value: the sentence only restates the tool name inside a category label. It does not earn its place because it provides no functional information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is severely under-specified. An agent cannot know the effect, prerequisites, relationship to fractal_start_run, or expected behavior when invoked. This is far below minimum viable completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers parameter semantics. The open additionalProperties: true is not a meaningful gap. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are 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 is essentially a category label plus the tool name: 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_finish_run'. It does not explicitly state the action or resource, so the agent must infer from the name that it finishes or completes a run. This is a tautological restatement rather than a functional definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like fractal_start_run or the fractal_record_* tools. The description provides no context for selecting this tool or avoiding others.

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