close_pit

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

Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, while the description says the tool 'closes' a resource and 'frees cluster resources.' That is a state-changing behavior, not a read-only one. The description does not resolve or even acknowledge this mismatch, which can mislead an agent that trusts the annotations.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. The primary action and effect are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a compact follow-up with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter cleanup tool, this is nearly complete. It says what, why, and when. However, it omits required preconditions (the PIT must already be open) and the postcondition that the pit_id is no longer usable, and the annotation contradiction undermines overall completeness.

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 documents pit_id only as a required string with no description. The tool description adds 'by its pit_id,' which is almost a restatement. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain how to obtain pit_id (e.g., from open_pit) and that it becomes invalid after closing.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Close') and names a specific resource ('point-in-time'), scoped by pit_id, with a clear purpose ('free cluster resources'). It clearly reads as the terminal counterpart to open_pit and is not likely to be confused with search or query siblings.

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?

'Call after paging finishes' is an explicit, useful lifecycle instruction. It does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but the context of the sibling set (open_pit, paged_search) makes the intended workflow clear enough.

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