finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions blocking behavior and showing return value, but does not disclose interactions with breakpoints, exceptions, or whether results are printed or returned. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a critical exception in the second sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 of a debugging tool with many siblings and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key alternative. However, it lacks details on timeout behavior, return value format, and how it handles breakpoints or errors.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the 'timeout' or 'session_id' parameters, leaving their purpose and usage unclear. The tool's functionality implies session_id identifies the debug session and timeout controls blocking duration, but explicit guidance is missing.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs forward until the current function returns and shows the return value. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'reverse-finish' by noting the rr replay context, which is a key differentiator.

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 provides explicit guidance for rr replay sessions, recommending reverse-finish instead. It also notes that the tool blocks until stopped. However, it does not contrast with other sibling tools like 'next' or 'step' in normal debugging scenarios.

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