session_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that recording stops, five artifacts are written, and verdict/summary are either user-supplied or derived from assertions. It stops short of stating irreversibility or failure behavior, but the main side effects are clearly surfaced.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded: what the tool does and what it produces. The optional-parameter behavior and artifact-retrieval follow-up are stated efficiently.

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 covers the tool's lifecycle role, preconditions ('open session'), side effects, artifact outputs, optional inputs, and a follow-up retrieval path. An output schema exists for return values, so the only notable gap is error behavior and whether closing is irreversible.

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 explain the parameters. It explains that summary and verdict are optional and default to being derived from executed assertions, and it clarifies that the session id doubles as the run_id for get_artifact. It could go further on session_id format, but the key semantics are covered.

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 action: closing an open session, stopping recording, and writing named artifacts. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like session_act and session_screenshot by focusing on termination and artifact finalization.

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 'Close an open session' implies it should be used at the end of a session, and the note about get_artifact is useful follow-up guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like session_annotate or session_inspect.

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