Stops background event recording on an Android device and returns captured toasts, frame counts, and the output directory. Use it to end a recording session and retrieve its results.
停止后台记录，返回 toasts/帧数/目录
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload (toasts, frame counts, directory), which is useful behavioral context, but it omits what happens if no recording is active, whether the artifacts are flushed/persisted, and whether the call is idempotent.
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 compact clause with no filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. It is terse almost to a fault, but there is no wasted wording to trim.
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?
There is no output schema, so the brief mention of returned artifacts partially compensates, and there are no parameters to explain. However, for a stateful session-terminating tool with no annotations, the description is thin on edge cases and side effects, leaving the agent to guess at failure and no-op behavior.
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, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to clarify or obscure. The agent needs no argument-level guidance to invoke it.
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 states a specific verb+resource (停止后台记录 / stop background recording) and even names the return payload, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like events.record_start, events.snapshot, or events.capture, relying on the naming pairing to convey that role.
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 is only implied: the agent must infer this terminates a session previously opened with events.record_start. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (an active recording), and no comparison against alternative ways to stop or collect events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.