Record three end-of-day answers, invalidate active leases, and close the loop without a next-day plan. Captures clarity and agency gained while leaving missions open.
Hard day terminal: record the three answers, invalidate active leases; no next-day plan. Missions are not closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| clearer | Yes | ||
| loop_closed | Yes | ||
| agency_gained | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the key observable effects: it records the answers, invalidates active leases, creates no next-day plan, and leaves missions open. This is specific and useful, though it could add details on prerequisites or reversibility.
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 short and front-loaded, with every clause adding a distinct fact. It sacrifices a little clarity for brevity, but it is efficiently 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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool still lacks enough context for correct invocation: the meaning of 'clearer' and 'agency_gained' and the expected content of the answers are unexplained. For a 4-parameter fully-required tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 0%, and the description only hints that loop_closed, clearer, and agency_gained are 'the three answers' without defining them. An agent cannot reliably construct these arguments from the available text; the description does not compensate for the empty schema descriptions.
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 names a specific operation ('record the three answers', 'invalidate active leases') and clearly identifies it as the hard-day terminal action. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'no next-day plan' and 'Missions are not closed', which sets it apart from propose_next_step and close_mission.
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 phrase 'Hard day terminal' gives clear context for when this applies, and the exclusions ('no next-day plan', 'Missions are not closed') tell the agent what it does not do. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the boundaries are inferable from the tool's sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.