end_tour

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it displays a closing card, offers a 'View on GitHub' button, speaks the summary, and blocks until spoken. This is genuinely useful, though it does not disclose post-condition behavior such as whether tour state is reset or what is returned.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by precise behavioral detail and a blocking caveat. Zero filler; every clause earns its place, and the blocking note is correctly placed at the end where it is actionable.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main outcomes the agent needs to know: what is shown, what is spoken, and that the call blocks. The only gap is unclear guidance on what content makes a valid summary.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema property 'summary'. It partially does: the summary is the content that appears in the closing card and is spoken aloud. This conveys the parameter's role, but it stops short of giving format or content guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Finish the tour'), then elaborates with concrete behavior: closing summary card, 'View on GitHub' button, and spoken summary. It clearly differentiates from siblings like start_tour, show_step, and tour_status by being the terminal action of the tour 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Finish the tour' — it is the end of the tour lifecycle, the natural counterpart to start_tour. However, the description never explicitly says when to call it versus show_overview or tour_status, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

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