stop_all_monitoring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the behavioral effect ('disconnect') beyond the name, but says nothing about idempotency, whether it errors when nothing is running, whether it affects only this session/client, or whether it is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though it is terse enough that the 'disconnect' clause is the only elaboration an agent gets.

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 teardown tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and side effect. The main missing piece is what state the caller is left in afterwards and whether the stop is global across all sessions.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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) with the resource (all WebSocket monitoring) and its side effect (disconnect), and the scope word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling start_block_monitoring / start_log_monitoring / start_pending_tx_monitoring tools.

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 implied — call this to tear down monitoring started by the start_* siblings — but there is no explicit when/when-not statement, no note on whether it must be called before re-subscribing, and no alternative named (e.g. get_websocket_status for inspection only).

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