close_thesis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Realised R is computed from the recorded entry and stop, so the result is comparable across positions of different sizes.' It also clarifies the outcome parameter with allowed values and explains the note field's purpose. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but it provides meaningful insight into how the tool behaves beyond the mere action of closing.

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 and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence purpose, adds a brief note about Realised R for context, then lists parameters in a clear arg format. There is no verbose filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four parameters and an output schema. The description explains the core purpose, parameter meanings, and a calculation detail. It does not explain the return value, but an output schema exists, so that's acceptable. It could be improved by clarifying side effects or differences from close_broker_position, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters: thesis_id (identifier from journal_thesis), outcome (with enumerated strings), exit_price (fill price, where there was one), and note (actual events, especially for wrong-reason cases). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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: 'Close a thesis, recording how it actually resolved.' This uses a specific verb ('close') and resource ('thesis'), and adds the purpose of recording resolution. The name alone is unambiguous, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_broker_position by focusing on the thesis lifecycle.

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 implies usage: you use this tool when you need to close a thesis and record its outcome. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use close_broker_position instead. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context, but explicit guidance on when not to use it is missing.

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