vaibot_finalize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the context of closing the governance receipt, which is a meaningful side effect. But it omits details on idempotency, auth requirements, or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 purpose and usage, with zero filler or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with clear schema coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it. It notes the governance receipt closure and the tie-in to vaibot_decide. Minor gaps exist around edge cases (e.g., finalizing after non-allow outcomes), but overall it is sufficient.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 5 parameters, so the structured fields already provide meaning. The description reinforces that run_id comes from vaibot_decide but does not add substantial new semantics 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 reports the actual outcome of an action after execution, with a specific verb ('report') and resource ('outcome of an action'). It also mentions closing the governance receipt, which distinguishes it from siblings like vaibot_decide and vaibot_receipts.

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?

It explicitly instructs to always call this after a vaibot_decide allow decision to close the governance receipt, providing clear temporal and contextual guidance. However, it does not discuss when not to use or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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