capture_stop

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 well: it discloses the stopping behavior, the returned buffer, and the explicit error when no capture is active. It could add more detail about side effects or buffer contents, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 extremely concise: two clauses, no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most important information (what it does and what it returns) is 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?

For a parameterless stop operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: action, result, and error condition. It does not explain what the buffer contains or the broader capture lifecycle, but that may be unnecessary given the simple contract.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially fully covered by the empty schema. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return value rather than parameters, which is appropriate here.

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 action ('Detiene la captura'), the resource ('captura'), and the observable result ('devuelve el buffer'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling capture_start by being the opposite operation, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 context is implied: this tool should be used to end a capture session started by capture_start. However, it does not explicitly mention capture_start as the alternative, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving the pairing to be inferred.

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