audit_end_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state the core action ('ends the session') and the return type ('event summary'), but it omits important details such as irreversibility, prerequisites (active session), error behavior for invalid traceId, and the effect of the 'outcome' parameter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 lifecycle tool, the description covers the primary action and return value, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves significant gaps around parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 phrase '指定追踪会话' weakly implies the required traceId parameter, but the description provides no semantics for the 'outcome' parameter (completed/failed) or its default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

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 uses a specific verb ('结束' / end) with the resource ('追踪会话' / trace session) and identifies a distinct output ('事件汇总' / event summary). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_start_trace, audit_record_event, audit_get_trail, and audit_export_report.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after audit_start_trace or before audit_get_trail. The intended usage is only implied by the lifecycle semantics of ending a trace and the sibling tool names.

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