desmume_stop

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It adds the ownership constraint, but omits any side effects such as whether the process is terminated gracefully, whether state is saved, or whether the process can be restarted. The action is destructive yet lacks consequences.

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 redundant words. Every word earns its place, conveying the action and the ownership limitation.

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 stop command, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the target and action, but given the absence of output schema and annotations, it would benefit from noting post-conditions (e.g., whether subsequent desmume_start is needed). It is complete for the basic action but lacks behavioral context.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters, the description cannot add parameter-level detail; baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no gap to compensate.

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 verb 'Stop' plus resource 'the owned DeSmuME process' clearly states the action and target. The qualifier 'only the owned' distinguishes it from stopping arbitrary processes and from sibling pause/terminate 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?

The description implies usage for halting the currently owned emulator session, and the 'only' qualifier sets an exclusion (do not use on unowned processes). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like desmume_pause or desmume_continue, nor specify when to prefer this over other control commands.

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