previewapk_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses that counts are server-composed, that the report is persisted in the portal and session archive, and that end_session defaults to false so the phone keeps running under the 15-minute idle rule. It does not cover repeat-call behavior or failure handling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the return value, then the constraints. Dense but not padded — each sentence states a rule or a hazard. Slightly long, and the portal/archive detail is lower priority than the count-provenance warning it sits next to.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately explains the one meaningful return value (message_for_human, to be relayed verbatim) plus server-side persistence. For a low-complexity, 4-param filing tool this is nearly complete; only 'device' and guidance on choosing verdict are left to the schema.

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 75%, so baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the real-world consequence of end_session (session keeps running vs. phone stops now, plus the wording change), which the schema's one-line description does not convey. The 'device' parameter is never addressed in the description and relies entirely on the bare schema entry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'File the wrap-up when your work on this session is done' — and names exactly what comes back ('get back message_for_human'). It also explicitly separates itself from the closest sibling: 'finish is the human's summary, feedback is the tool team's.'

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when your work on this session is done'), routes the agent to previewapk_feedback for the other kind of report, and spells out the conditional for end_session=true ('only when the human should get the session-record wording and the phone should stop now'). The when-not is as clear as the when.

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