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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses the output shape (time-series, per-process avg/peak) but doesn't state what happens if called without an active session, whether stopping is destructive (loses recording), or how it interacts with sessionId validity. For a stateful stop operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that conveys the action and the output shape. It is efficient with no filler or redundant text. Could slightly expand on behavioral details, but as far as conciseness, it's well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

This is a stateful mutation tool (stops an ongoing recording) with no annotations and no output schema. The description tells what it returns but not the pre-conditions (active session required), failure behavior, or whether this terminates and frees resources. Given the stateful nature and lack of annotation support, the description should do more to be 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter sessionId is fully described ('Session id from android_performance_record_start') in the schema itself. The description adds dependency context by implying the session must come from a prior start call, which aligns with the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Stop a performance recording') and describes the return value (full time-series + per-process summary). It clearly distinguishes from android_performance_record_start and android_performance_snapshot. However, it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from sibling android_performance_record_stop (there's no such sibling, but the pairing with start is implicit).

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 implies it must be called after android_performance_record_start by referencing 'Stop a performance recording,' but it does not explicitly state the prerequisite relationship or explain when to use it vs android_performance_snapshot (which could be an alternative for point-in-time metrics). Context implies usage but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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