stop_stream

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

While no annotations are provided, the description fills that burden by disclosing the destructive/finalizing nature of the operation: it releases board, serial ports, and LSL outlets. It also warns about resource blocking consequences. It doesn't detail irreversible side effects (e.g., data loss for active recording), but genuinely conveys the teardown behavior.

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?

Extremely economical: one clear sentence stating the action and its full scope, followed by a terse imperative with concrete motivation. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restatements of the name.

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?

A simple one-param teardown tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present. The description adequately conveys purpose, scope of cleanup, and when to call it. Could marginally mention effects on active recordings, but for a teardown tool with good schema support, this is largely complete.

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% and the single param (session_id) is documented as 'The stream to stop.' The description references 'a stream' which maps to session_id implicitly. There's no added format/validation detail, but with full schema coverage and a single obvious parameter, the 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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') with a clear resource ('a stream') and lists what gets released (board, serial ports, LSL outlets). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like start_stream and stream_status by specifying the full teardown scope — this is a teardown/completion operation.

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?

Explicitly states 'Always call this when finished' and explains the negative consequence of not calling it: 'A board left prepared can block the next process from acquiring the device.' This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance and a concrete reason, contrasting with the start_stream sibling.

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