stop_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the key consequences: the monitor is closed and the port is freed — which is meaningful lifecycle context. However, it doesn't disclose idempotency (what happens if called with a stopped/invalid session), error behavior, or whether this affects streaming/recording. Moderate disclosure but not complete.

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 clear sentence that captures purpose and side effect with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present. The description covers the core behavior adequately. However, with a mutating action (freeing a port), it would help to note idempotency or behavior on non-existent sessions, especially since no annotations provide a safety profile. Basic completeness but lifecycle edge cases are left undocumented.

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% with the session_id parameter fully described. The description adds the notion that this closes a 'live' monitor and frees its 'port,' adding slight context about what 'stop' means operationally. However, it doesn't add meaning about valid session states (must the session exist? must it be currently monitored?). Schema already handles the base case, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Close a session's live monitor and free its port' uses a specific verb (close/free), names the resource (session's live monitor), and clearly states the side effect (freeing its port). It distinguishes from the sibling start_monitor/list_monitors reasonably well, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are related monitor tools (start_monitor, list_monitors) and stream tools (stop_stream), but the description doesn't clarify when to stop a monitor vs stop a stream, or whether stopping a monitor is a prerequisite for disarming/releasing resources. Context is implied (when you need to end a monitor) 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.