aso_complete

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 the key state mutation: marking the 'aso' stage done and unblocking the metadata/deliver gate. It omits whether validation failure is fatal, whether the call is idempotent, and any permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-changing tool.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the two actions and appends the downstream effect in parentheses. No filler, every clause carries information.

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, but the near-total absence of annotations and the completely undocumented parameter leave the tool only minimally specified. For a tool that mutates pipeline state, more on failure handling and sequencing relative to aso_run/pipeline_mark would be expected.

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?

There is one parameter, app_dir, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The name is largely self-explanatory (the app's root directory), but no format or scope detail is added, so it neither compensates for nor meaningfully worsens the coverage 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 gives a specific compound verb+resource: 'Validate the ASO output + mark the 'aso' stage done'. It also names the downstream consequence ('opens the metadata/deliver gate'), which helps separate it from aso_run and aso_validate_metadata. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so not a 5.

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 'opens the metadata/deliver gate' clause implies this is the step that follows ASO generation and precedes metadata/deliver work, giving implied sequencing. However, it never states when to prefer this over aso_validate_metadata or pipeline_mark, nor any preconditions (e.g. ASO output must already exist).

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