derivation_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-save behavior ('自動存檔'), the auto_save parameter defaulting to True, and the return payload including save path. It does not mention whether completion is irreversible or blocks further step recording, but the state change is implied by 'mark as complete'.

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 front-loaded with a Chinese summary, followed by well-organized Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every part adds value, including the detailed example, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 8-parameter schema with 0% coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description provides strong context about what to submit and what to expect in return. It explains the auto-save behavior and return fields. However, it doesn't mention session_id or how this tool relates to other finalization/abort siblings, leaving minor contextual gaps.

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%, so the description compensates by defining most parameters in the Args section (description, clinical_context, assumptions, limitations, references, tags, auto_save). It omits session_id, which appears in the schema, leaving one parameter undocumented. The example further clarifies usage, but the gap prevents a 5.

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's function: '完成推導並自動存檔' (complete derivation and auto-save) and '標記推導為完成' (mark derivation as complete). It explicitly says it returns the complete derivation record, which distinguishes it from step-level tools like derivation_record_step or derivation_abort.

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 gives clear context that this is the completion step for a derivation and instructs the agent to provide descriptive knowledge (physical/clinical meaning, usage timing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like derivation_abort, so exclusions are missing.

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