commander_finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a prerequisite ('after required steps') and does not mention side effects, state changes, idempotency, or error behavior, making the tool's runtime impact unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the tool's return behavior and prerequisites, but it only states a vague precondition. For a simple tool it is still incomplete, leaving the actual completion action and any consequences undisclosed.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter references.

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 'Complete onboarding after required steps' clearly identifies the action (complete) and the resource (onboarding), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling commander_onboard by implying a sequential relationship. However, it does not specify what 'completing' entails, so it lacks the full scope precision of a top-tier description.

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 'after required steps' provides some contextual timing, implying this should be used only after certain prerequisites are met. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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