Produce a final report that clearly separates observed evidence from estimates using the session ID, making tutoring outcomes transparent and trustworthy.
Generate the closing report, separating observed evidence from estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| save_as_artifact | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the report separates evidence from estimates, but it does not say whether the tool persists anything, whether it can be run multiple times, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. This is especially thin given the save_as_artifact parameter exists but is not mentioned.
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 with no filler. The core action comes first and the distinguishing behavior follows immediately. Every word 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The agent knows the report's purpose but not its side effects, return value, prerequisites, or how save_as_artifact affects behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention session_id or save_as_artifact at all, and it adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names and the default value in the schema.
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?
States a clear verb-resource pair ('Generate the closing report') and adds the distinctive behavior of 'separating observed evidence from estimates,' which differentiates it from sibling reporting tools like generate_diagnostic, generate_assessment, and save_benchmark_report. An agent can understand what this tool does without needing the schema.
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 word 'closing' implies the tool should be used at the end of a session, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. Usage context is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.