athena_session_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden for disclosing side effects and safety. It reveals that closing a session involves 'public summary telemetry' and optional Git checkpointing with 'expected-head CAS', but it does not state whether the session is deleted, what happens on CAS failure, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Close a session'. Every phrase earns its place, covering the core action, telemetry, and optional Git checkpoint. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior when expected_git_head mismatches. It is too brief to fully guide an agent in using this tool correctly, especially given the CAS mechanism and optional checkpointing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides some context for parameters: 'public summary telemetry' hints at the summary object, and 'expected-head CAS' explains expected_git_head's role. However, it does not explicitly map all parameters (e.g., checkpoint_git relationship to expected_git_head) or provide syntax details. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 begins with 'Close a session', a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like athena_session_start. It also adds scope with 'public summary telemetry' and Git brain checkpointing, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context by mentioning 'Close a session', which signals when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state conditions when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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