record_screen_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it stops a background recording, pulls the file to `local_path`, and deletes the on-device file. That cleanup is an important destructive side effect, though error conditions and whether recording must be active are not covered.

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 tightly written sentence followed by a brief return summary. The main action is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the main action and cleanup behavior. However, it leaves gaps around the `serial` parameter and failure modes, which matters because there are no annotations and no schema descriptions to fill those gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains that `local_path` is the destination for the pulled file, but it completely omits the optional `serial` parameter, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: stop the background screen recording, pull it to `local_path`, and clean up the on-device file. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `record_screen_start` and `capture_screen` by naming the stop-and-retrieve workflow.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'background screen recording', suggesting it is used after `record_screen_start`. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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