stop_reading_mode

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, consistent with a local state toggle, and the description's 'stop key remapping' matches a mutation that is not destructive. However, it does not say whether original keybindings are restored or whether the call is idempotent/no-op when reading mode is inactive, which is the main behavioral question for a stop tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the 'for reading mode' qualifier restates what the name plus sibling set already imply.

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 zero-parameter state-off tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any note on the resulting state or behavior when already stopped.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description has nothing extra to document. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (stop) and resource (key remapping for reading mode), and by naming 'reading mode' it implicitly points to the sibling start_reading_mode. The scope is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from other state-changing tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the inverse of start_reading_mode. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, whether it's safe to call when reading mode is already off, or what the alternative is.

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