end_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it closes the browser, computes metrics, and returns a full transcript. It could add irreversibility or validation details, but the main side effects are covered.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The version note adds useful context without waste, though some minor redundancy exists ('full' and 'all'). Overall efficient and well-structured.

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, the description compensates by detailing what the report includes (Core Web Vitals, accessibility, network, console errors). It covers purpose, behavior, and output adequately, though it omits prerequisites or error conditions. Still complete enough for most use cases.

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?

All four parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add extra parameter meaning. It adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'End a session and get the final report', which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_session by describing the closing behavior and specific outputs (friction score, emotional arc, transcript).

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 implies when to use this tool (when a session should be ended and a report is needed) through its clear statement of behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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