finalize_run

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

With no annotations, the description bears full weight for behavioral disclosure. It mentions ancestor walking and writing to output_dir, but lacks details on overwrite behavior, directory creation, permissions, or side effects on run state.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding a behavioral detail in the second. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the generated files contain, the impact on the run state, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool that finalizes a run.

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 has 0% coverage; the description explains output_dir and implicitly project_root, but does not address the status parameter (enum with default). It adds meaning beyond the schema for two parameters but not for all three.

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 clearly specifies the tool's action: generating run_record.json and validation_report.json into an output directory. It distinguishes from siblings by stating its specific output and behavior of walking ancestors to find project root.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_run or describe_run. It states what it does but not when it is appropriate or when it is not.

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