get_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the unusual 'absent rather than zero' semantics for blocking recall and explains why (production lacks labelled pairs), preventing a misinterpretation. It also clarifies that the detail parameter is a projection that changes response size, not content. No contradictions.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds value: the blocking-recall caveat is critical for accuracy, and the detail explanation is essential for correct invocation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on key nuances, avoiding fluff.

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?

The description provides all necessary details for correct invocation: what the return contains, the behavior of the detail parameter, and the alternative tool for proofs. An output schema exists, so return structure is already defined elsewhere. No critical information is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the detail parameter's effect (summary vs. full, ~59 KB) and that it is a projection. run_id is not described but its name is self-explanatory and it is a required identifier, which is acceptable given the context.

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 states the tool returns 'a recorded close, rebuilt from its decision log' and enumerates the specific data it conveys: match rate with tier splits, proof-tier split, blocked/waiting-on-human items, the authority it ran under, and whether the signature held. It explicitly names get_proof as the sibling for reading individual proofs, which differentiates it from that alternative.

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 gives explicit guidance on the detail parameter, explaining that summary is the default and that get_proof should be used to fetch a specific proof, thereby directing the agent when to use this tool versus that sibling. It does not specify when to use this over other siblings like list_runs, but the core purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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