browser_stop_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether collected coverage is retained or discarded, whether it affects future navigation, or whether it is reversible. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant transparency 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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. No filler or redundant information exists, making it highly efficient 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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), but the description lacks behavioral context such as when to use it, what happens to existing coverage data, and whether it must be paired with a preceding start action. It is adequate for a minimal stop command but leaves notable gaps in state management expectations.

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, and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The action is self-contained.

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 '停止收集代码覆盖率' clearly states the action (stop) and the resource (code coverage collection). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_get_coverage, which retrieves coverage rather than halting its collection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions prerequisite it, or how it relates to other coverage tools. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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