Stop-Recording-Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the side effect (stopping recording) and implies that the recorded actions remain usable by saying Export-Test-Script can be used afterward. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the actionable next step. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant wording or restating of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema lifecycle tool, the description is complete enough. It explains the action and the natural follow-up. It does not explicitly state whether stopping is reversible or whether the recording is preserved, but the export instruction implies the recording remains available.

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, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies because there is no schema gap 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Stop recording test actions.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like Start-Recording-Tool and Clear-Recording-Tool, and it reinforces its role by pointing to the next step in the 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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool fits: it should be used after recording is finished, and the follow-up step (Export-Test-Script with format="pytest") is explicitly named. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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