report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose one genuinely non-schema behavioral rule: rewritten pre-existing tests require test_changes entries formatted 'PATH: why'. Beyond that it is silent on whether calling this terminates the session, whether repeated calls are allowed, or what side effects occur.

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 with no filler, and the primary directive is front-loaded ahead of the special-case rule. Minor ambiguity in 'changed files' (which does not map cleanly to a parameter name) is the only cost.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could explain what reporting produces, but it does not. For a 6-parameter terminal tool with 17% schema coverage, leaving artifacts and the project scope largely unexplained is a meaningful gap.

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 only 17% (just 'project'), so the description must compensate. It names status, summary, and evidence, and clarifies the test_changes format, but it never explains 'artifacts' or disambiguates 'changed files' from the artifacts/test_changes parameters, leaving key parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific action ('Finish the task') plus the content to supply (status, summary, changed files, evidence), so the agent knows this is the terminal reporting step. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts itself against plausible alternatives like checkpoint, remember, or guard, which are the tools it could be confused with.

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?

'Finish the task' implies this is called at the end, which is useful implied timing. However, there is no explicit statement of when-not to use it (e.g., vs. checkpoint for intermediate progress) and no named alternative, so the routing is left to inference.

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