knowl_task_finish

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

With only openWorldHint=false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool should be used exactly once and only for manual loops, which is useful, but it does not describe what happens on repeat calls, side effects, or the nature of the completion beyond 'summary.' Some behavior is revealed, but not deeply.

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 sentences carry the essential scope, timing, and exclusion with no filler. The primary constraint is front-loaded ('exactly once after verification'), and the critical safety exclusion follows immediately.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully described parameters, the description provides the needed usage context and constraints. It lacks any mention of return values or post-finish behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the minimal parameter surface make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that taskId comes from knowl_task_start, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not need to compensate for coverage gaps.

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 ('Finish'), a precise resource ('one manual work loop'), and a key constraint ('exactly once after verification'). It ties directly to the taskId from knowl_task_start and explicitly distinguishes itself from hook-owned sessions, helping an agent tell it apart from knowl_task_checkpoint and knowl_session_finish.

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 gives clear timing guidance ('after verification'), the source of the required identifier, and an explicit exclusion ('Never use for a hook-owned session'). It does not name alternative tools for intermediate checkpoints or session-level finishing, but the conditions are specific enough for correct routing.

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