evidence_finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects like destroying the session, what the summary contains, how it is returned/written, or error behavior if no active session exists. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Finish') and clearly states the secondary outcome ('write its summary').

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, which lowers the burden. However, given the lack of annotations, the description should clarify prerequisites (e.g., an active session must exist) and consequences (e.g., session is closed, summary is persisted). The current description is minimal but adequate for a simple tool, yet leaves important behavioral gaps.

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, and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the baseline of 4 applies since parameters are absent.

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: 'Finish the active evidence session and write its summary.' The verb 'finish' combined with the resource 'evidence session' and the outcome 'write its summary' leaves no ambiguity. It is distinct from siblings like evidence_begin and evidence_note, which handle session start and note-taking respectively.

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 this is the final step in an evidence session by referencing the 'active evidence session.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'do not use if you need to add more notes; use evidence_note instead'). The context is strong enough to guide usage.

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