zulip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: it writes a clean exit marker (implying persistence), posts a farewell message with session duration (implying timing calculation), and allows silent exits. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it uses clear sections (Args, Returns) for structure.

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's moderate complexity (session termination with messaging), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well. It could slightly improve by mentioning any side effects (e.g., session cleanup) or prerequisites, but it's sufficient for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'message' parameter's purpose (farewell message), default value (':wave: Signing off'), and special case (empty string for silent exit). This covers all semantic aspects of the single parameter effectively.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('End', 'Writes', 'Posts') and resources ('current session', 'clean exit marker', 'farewell message'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are focused on message manipulation, file operations, or user/stream queries, not session termination.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to end a session gracefully, with options for posting a message or ending silently. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., abrupt termination methods), though sibling tools are unrelated to session management.

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