Abandon an active Socratic coaching session and archive it with a final summary. Use this to end or cancel a coaching session early while preserving its outcome.
放弃当前进行中的 Socratic 辅导会话并归档。
Args:
session_id: 要放弃的会话 ID
Returns:
dict: 包含 final_summary 的归档结果
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions archiving and that a final_summary is returned, which adds some context, but omits whether the abandon is irreversible, whether partial progress is preserved, and what errors occur if the session is invalid.
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?
The text is short and front-loaded with the core action, with Args/Returns cleanly separated. There is no wasted framing, though the parameter line is redundant with the schema.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return value (dict with final_summary), which helps. But for a mutation tool it should disclose more behavioral and edge-case detail to be truly complete.
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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only restates '要放弃的会话 ID' (the session ID to abandon), which adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the parameter name itself.
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 (abandon) and resource (the in-progress Socratic coaching session) plus an outcome (archiving). It is distinguishable from siblings like coaching_start_coaching and coaching_continue_coaching, though it does not explicitly name the contrast.
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?
Usage is implied by '当前进行中的' (currently in-progress) session, suggesting it applies mid-session. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as continue or switch_to_simple, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.