computeruse_finish_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the terminal action and status values but does not disclose side effects (whether the session is permanently closed, whether subsequent execute_step calls fail, or what happens if no active session exists) or the response format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose and required outcome in one pass with no filler. This is appropriately concise for a two-parameter terminal action.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description makes the basic call signature usable, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no side-effect disclosure, the definition is not fully complete. An agent can invoke it but may not know the consequences of finishing a session or how to handle errors.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds little beyond the schema: 'done, failed, or cancelled' merely restates the enum, and 'with a summary' gives no guidance on what the summary should contain or how to choose a status. The enum values are self-explanatory but not contextualized.

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 uses a specific verb ('Finish') and resource ('active MCP-tracked session'), and names the three possible terminal statuses plus summary. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like computeruse_start_session, computeruse_observe, and computeruse_execute_step.

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 'active MCP-tracked session' implies it should be used when a session is open and needs to be ended, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is given. An agent must infer the precondition and that it should not be called before starting or after finishing a session.

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