finish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it reveals that the tool terminates the session and returns a scorecard, and explains the semantics of `limiting_factor` and `recurring_habits`. It could additionally note the irreversible nature of ending the session, but the verb 'End' already implies this.

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 leads with the core purpose in one sentence, then adds focused sentences about the scorecard's interpretation. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 has no inputs and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about what the scorecard contains and how to interpret it. The explanation of limiting_factor and recurring_habits adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool takes no parameters, and the input schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior.

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: ending the session and returning the scorecard. This distinguishes it from siblings like score (which likely evaluates individual answers) and progress (which tracks status).

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 opening phrase 'End the session' communicates the primary use case—wrapping up the interview. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know 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.