stop_watching

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens after stopping (e.g., whether monitoring is permanently halted, if it can be restarted, or if there are side effects like freeing resources). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (stopping monitoring implies a state change) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what constitutes successful execution, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely interacts with a monitoring system, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'filePath' clearly documented in the schema as 'Path to the log file to stop monitoring'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on path formats, validation, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop monitoring') and the resource ('a specific log file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'watch_log_file' (which would be the inverse) or 'list_watched_files', but the verb 'stop' implies a complementary relationship rather than direct competition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the file must already be watched), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'watch_log_file' for starting monitoring or 'list_watched_files' to check current watches. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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