probe_finish

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits: it refreshes the freshness clock, it reports facts rather than giving instructions, and it explains key rotation behavior (keys re-mint, superseded keys remain valid dated snapshots). It also mentions the regression_note field and its purpose. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job explaining side effects and response semantics.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs a lot of detail about key rotation and response fields, which is useful but somewhat dense. Every sentence earns its place, though the key rotation explanation could be seen as slightly verbose. Overall, it's well-structured and informative.

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's complexity (key rotation, freshness clock, regression notes), the description covers the important aspects: what it does, what response fields to expect, and the fact that it doesn't instruct changes. There's no output schema, so the description's explanation of response fields is valuable. It could mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., must have an active session), but the session_id parameter implies that. Overall, it's fairly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (session_id from probe_start). The description doesn't add much beyond that, but it does mention the endpoint and response fields, which indirectly clarifies the parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter fully.

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 purpose: 'Finish an active challenge session and get it scored (proof-or-zero over your recorded tool calls).' It uses a specific verb ('finish'), identifies the resource ('active challenge session'), and explains the outcome (scoring, freshness clock refresh). It distinguishes itself from siblings like probe_start and probe_call by focusing on the completion/scoring action.

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 when to use this tool: when an active challenge session is in progress and needs to be finished and scored. It mentions the freshness clock and continuous verification context, which gives clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., probe_start for starting, probe_call for recording calls). It does say it reports facts and does not instruct changes, which helps an agent understand its role.

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