mirror_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutating action ('Stop') but does not disclose consequences, reversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects. The only behavioral context is the scope 'server-owned,' which is more about purpose than 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 clear sentence that directly states the action and scope. No superfluous words or repetition of schema details.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable. However, it does not explain what 'server-owned' means, what happens after the stop, or how this relates to mirror_status or mirror_start. For a low-complexity tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 has zero parameters, which makes parameter-semantics discussion moot. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and there is no schema information to compensate for.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'the server-owned scrcpy mirror.' This distinguishes it from mirror_start and mirror_status, though it does not explicitly contrast with other stop tools like app_stop.

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 phrase 'server-owned' implies a filter against other mirrors, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, and no alternative tools are named.

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