repopilot_finish_step

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with these by stating idempotent repeats and rejection of conflicting results. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies the state machine (only after Skill stopped), and notes conflict rejection. This exceeds the baseline annotation-only coverage.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage constraints. Each sentence carries weight: purpose, conditionality, and idempotency/conflict behavior. It's not overly verbose, though it could slightly improve by mentioning the sibling alternatives for clarity.

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 tool is a terminal action with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: it's a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), it has idempotency behavior, and it has a post-Skill-stop condition. It doesn't need to explain return values, but something about response or success indication could be added, yet it's not critical for a tool with clear behavior.

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 100%, so descriptions already document all three parameters. The description adds context like 'evidence-backed summary' and 'without credentials', but this adds only moderate value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain the impact of 'blocked' or 'skipped' statuses, but the schema already defines them as enums.

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 it finishes a RepoPilot Step with a terminal outcome and summary, and it's connected to the Step lifecycle. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tools beyond this role; while it references the start and evidence append tools indirectly, it doesn't name them or differentiate beyond 'finish' vs others.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use only after the associated Skill has stopped, do not use for a running Step, and notes idempotency and rejection of conflicting terminal results. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it doesn't name alternative tools for various scenarios, the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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