close_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: rejection conditions (under_test hypotheses for completed), side effects (proposed → abandoned; unconcluded → abandoned), and state-machine enforcement (rejects if programme is not active). This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly sectioned by status value and enforcement rules. All content earns its place, though the trailing 'commitment 1' line is somewhat opaque framing rather than actionable instruction.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, per-mode behavior, prerequisites, side effects, and enforcement — everything an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's enum note by explaining the automatic side effects each status value triggers (auto-marking proposed/unconcluded hypotheses). That is genuine added semantic value on top of structured data.

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 specific verb and resource (close a programme) and immediately specifies the two outcome modes via status. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like conclude_hypothesis and abandon_hypothesis because it operates at programme scope rather than hypothesis scope.

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?

Gives explicit guidance for each status: 'completed' requires all hypotheses concluded and directs the agent to conclude_hypothesis first; 'abandoned' sweeps unconcluded hypotheses. It names the prerequisite sibling tool, though it does not explicitly contrast against abandon_hypothesis for the alternative path.

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