finalize_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it walks ancestors to find project root, but does not state if the operation is destructive, if it overwrites existing files, or any auth/rate limit considerations. Lacks key behavioral context.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. Could benefit from structured format (e.g., listing params), but remains efficient and clear.

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, so description should detail return values (file contents/structure), but it does not. Also incomplete regarding parameter semantics. Given complexity (3 params, 1 enum), it lacks sufficient detail for full agent understanding.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains output_dir and project_root (ancestor walking) but omits status parameter entirely, including its enum values and effect. Only partially addresses parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states it generates two specific output files (run_record.json and validation_report.json) for an output directory, which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_run or validate_run.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., validate_run, describe_run). The description implies it's for finalizing a run but does not provide when/when-not context or mention prerequisites.

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