capture_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two concrete behaviors: stopping the capture and releasing the adb process. However, it does not mention what happens if no capture is active, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the output looks like.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and includes the key side effect, making every word useful.

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 simple no-parameter stop operation, the description provides the essential information: what is stopped and what resource is released. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, though slightly more context about the expected state before calling this tool would improve completeness.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to clarify. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 and no additional semantic explanation is needed.

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') and a clear resource ('background logcat capture'), while also specifying the side effect of releasing the adb process. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_start and capture_read.

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 as the counterpart to starting a background logcat capture, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any preconditions. The context of 'background logcat capture' gives enough signal for an agent to infer its purpose, though exclusions are absent.

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