finish_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses default actions (cancel running tasks, keep results for completed) and the effect of 'remove_from_memory'. It could mention more about process cleanup side effects, but it's transparent enough for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, no redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and no annotations, the description covers core behavior and defaults. It omits details like return values or what 'clean up' entails in terms of memory, but it is nearly complete for the tool's scope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining defaults and overall flow, but does not provide additional constraints, examples, or relationships beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Close', 'clean up') and specifies the resource ('task lifecycle', 'tracked child processes'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'cancel_task' which might only cancel without lifecycle closure.

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 explains default behaviors for running vs completed tasks and the 'remove_from_memory' effect, providing clear context on when to use. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool names, but the context is sufficient.

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