End Session

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that success may be refused based on findings count, and that the call should occur after a final perceive_screen. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention other side effects, but the key behavior is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It includes essential constraints and ordering without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and it is structured 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the outcome options, the refusal condition, and the calling order. It does not elaborate on the 'device' or 'summary' parameters, but these are optional and likely self-explanatory. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 all parameters. It only describes 'outcome' with its allowed values (success, partial, failed). It does not explain 'device' or 'summary' at all, leaving them undocumented. This is a significant gap given the zero coverage.

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: 'Close out the run.' It specifies the resource (the run) and the outcome values. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings by being the terminal session action. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 usage context: 'Call after a final perceive_screen.' It also explains a condition for success (refusal if fewer findings than target_count), which guides when to use and when success may not be granted. This is clear and actionable.

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