complete_step

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns next step info but does not disclose side effects, preconditions (e.g., session must have an active step), or idempotency. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely alters state.

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 with a single-sentence purpose and a structured argument docstring. It is front-loaded and earns its sentences, though the docstring format is slightly verbose for the agent.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description should explain prerequisites (e.g., session must be active, step must be current) and how output integrates with workflow. Missing these contextual details reduces completeness.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains session_id as 'ID of the session' and result as 'optional result from executing the current step'. This adds meaning but lacks details like data types or constraints 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 clearly states the tool completes the current step and returns the next step. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'execute_current_step' which likely executes rather than completes. However, the distinction is not explicitly made.

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 for transitioning steps but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'execute_current_step' or 'start_workflow'. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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