emulator_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent destructive operation. The description adds the useful constraint that only MCP-managed processes are affected. It does not say whether in-process state or data is discarded, or what happens when nothing is running — gaps that matter for a destructive call.

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 sentence with no filler, and the critical scoping qualifier is placed early. It is arguably over-terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 zero-parameter tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the definition is close to sufficient. What is missing is the consequence of the stop (state loss, effect on running workloads) and the failure mode when no managed emulator exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The scope phrase correctly signals that no target argument is needed or accepted.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') applied to a specific resource ('emulator process') with a scoping qualifier ('only an MCP-managed'), so the agent can distinguish it from the broader emulator toolset. It never names emulator_start or emulator_status, but the scope wording alone makes the action unambiguous.

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 word 'only' implicitly tells the agent not to use this on emulators it did not manage via MCP, which is a real exclusion. However, there is no positive guidance on when to stop versus merely checking emulator_status, and no stated precondition such as an emulator needing to be running.

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