android_record_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that video is sampled into frames, sent to LM Studio, and returns a paragraph, which is meaningful beyond the stop action. It doesn't cover side effects like whether the recording file is deleted, but the main processing behavior is transparent.

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 appropriately sized, front-loads the purpose, and uses a concise bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value, including the rationale about avoiding context flooding.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, process, parameters, and expected output (a paragraph). No critical call information is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section explains handle, analyze, fps, max_frames, and model with defaults and semantics, fully covering the parameters beyond the schema.

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 the specific action (stop a recording) and the subsequent VLM analysis, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling android_record_start. The verb-resource combination is unambiguous and the purpose is not a tautology.

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 reference to handle coming from android_record_start implies the tool is the counterpart to the start tool, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like android_analyze or state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit routing.

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