Mark a sweep as finished and retrieve its summary, including trial counts and the best trial, to conclude a completed, failed, or cancelled search.
Mark a sweep finished and return its summary (trial counts and the best trial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Outcome of the sweep | succeeded |
| sweep_id | Yes | Id returned by start_sweep |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden for this mutation operation. It states that the sweep is marked finished and that a summary is returned, but it does not disclose important details like idempotency, required permissions, effects on in-flight trials, or error conditions.
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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and then mentions the return summary, which is appropriately sized for this simple tool.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return formatting in detail. However, with no annotations and only implicit usage guidance, the definition is somewhat thin for a mutation operation whose status parameter has behavioral implications.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at the baseline for high coverage.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a sweep finished'. It also clarifies that the tool returns a summary with trial counts and the best trial. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like start_sweep or best_run, but its purpose is unambiguous.
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 usage is implied by 'finished', meaning this should be called when a sweep is complete. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose finish_sweep versus alternatives such as cancel_run, or how to pick the status value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.