ruyi_intercept_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'stop all network interception' but does not describe side effects, whether it clears pending interceptions, scope (global vs current page), or any impact on other interception-related tools. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 short sentence without fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified: it omits essential details about parameters and usage, making it more of a minimal placeholder than a well-structured description. Conciseness cannot compensate for missing information.

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 has one parameter and no annotations, the description should explain the overall behavior and parameter scope. It does not. The presence of sibling tools like ruyi_intercept_wait and ruyi_trace_stop suggests potential overlap or sequencing, but the description gives no context for how this tool fits into a workflow.

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 input schema has one optional parameter, pageIdx, with no description (schema description coverage is 0%). The tool description also fails to mention or explain pageIdx, leaving agents with no semantic information about what this parameter controls or how to use it. The description adds no value beyond the schema in this regard.

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 all network interception.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ruyi_intercept_requests and ruyi_intercept_responses by targeting the stopping action rather than starting or waiting.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ruyi_trace_stop or ruyi_capture_stop, nor does it explain any prerequisites (e.g., that interception must already be active). The optional pageIdx parameter is not described, so an agent cannot know its purpose or when to set it.

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