end_session

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

Although the description details what the tool checks and returns, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it discuss potential side effects or permissions. With no annotations provided, the description falls short of fully disclosing behavioral traits.

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 concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the critical usage instruction ('MUST be called before ending any coding session') and provides all necessary details without extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, what it returns (PASS/FAIL checklist), and the required follow-up action. It could mention idempotency or the absence of side effects, but it is generally complete for its purpose.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets this standard.

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 purpose: to be called before ending a coding session, checking for uncommitted changes and documentation freshness. It uses a specific verb (end/check) and resource (session), and distinguishes its role from sibling tools like save_session or delete_session by focusing on pre-termination verification.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (before ending any coding session) and what to do after (resolve all FAIL items). It lacks explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it.

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