stop_recording

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as file verification (checking file_exists, file_size_bytes, pull_returncode) and potential failure modes (missing/empty file, permission failures). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it covers key behaviors but does not discuss rate limits or authentication details.

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 concise (6 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage condition, verification steps, error recovery, and permission handling. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description, combined with the input schema and presence of output schema, provides complete guidance for correct usage. It covers when to use, what to expect, and how to handle failures, making it fully adequate for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (single parameter 'session_id' fully described in schema). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the parameter's origin. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Stop one manual recording session and verify the produced file.' It identifies the specific resource (a recording session) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'stop_all_recordings' by specifying 'one manual recording session'.

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 explicit usage context: call after 'start_recording' or 'start_app_window_recording' returns a session_id and UI interaction finishes. It also gives post-call verification steps and error recovery instructions, including alternative tools ('list_active_sessions', 'cleanup_stale_processes') and permission handling.

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