end_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action and output but fails to mention important side effects, such as whether the session becomes invalid, whether data is saved, or what the 'quick summary' contains. This is a significant transparency gap for an action that terminates something.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should cover return values, error scenarios, and behavioral context. It only mentions a 'quick summary' without specifying its contents, and does not address invalid session IDs or whether the action is reversible. For a tool with one parameter and no other metadata, this is inadequate for full 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?

The input schema only lists session_id as a required string, and the description provides no additional context about this parameter. Since the schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have elaborated on what session_id refers to or how to obtain it, but it does not. The parameter is left entirely to interpretation.

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 the action ('End') and the specific resource ('a tracking session'), and also indicates the output ('get a quick summary'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_session and record_interaction, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: use this when you want to end a tracking session. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., an active session). The intent is clear but not fully elaborated.

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