Mark an agent session as finished by closing every open skill invocation, while recording the outcome and error class for telemetry.
Close every open skill invocation for this actor and agent session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | ||
| outcome | No | completed | |
| session_id | Yes | ||
| error_class | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior: closing every open skill invocation. However, annotations provide only a title É no safety or mutation hints. It does not mention idempotency, what happens when there are no open invocations, or any side effects beyond closing.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It states the action and scope immediately, making it easy to consume.
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?
The operation is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation and minimal usage context leaves gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly, especially for the optional outcome and error_class fields.
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 has 0% description coverage-loss, and the tool description does not explain the parameters. 'agent' and 'session_id' are loosely implied by 'this actor and agent session,' but 'outcome' and 'error_class' are entirely unexplained, forcing an agent to guess at their meaning and default behavior.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Close every open skill invocation' for a given actor and agent session. It clearly differentiates this session-level terminal tool from sibling telemetry tools like gateway_telemetry_skill_completed and gateway_telemetry_skill_failed, which operate on individual skill invocations.
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 usage at the end of an agent session, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_telemetry_skill_completed or gateway_telemetry_skill_failed. An agent can infer the context, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.