console_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the core action but does not disclose whether previously recorded logs are retained, whether stopping is idempotent, or what happens if recording was never started. This leaves an agent unable to predict side effects after invoking the tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the action and scope efficiently, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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, the description covers the basic action and parameter, but it omits important behavioral context such as log retention after stopping and when to use it relative to console_start. With no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, and the single parameter targetId already has a clear description: "Target ID of the tab." The tool description adds only the phrase "for a tab," which reinforces the parameter but provides no new semantic information. The schema carries the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: "Stop recording console logs for a tab." This clearly identifies the action and scope, and differentiates it from siblings like console_start, console_get_logs, and console_clear. The operation is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or name alternatives, but the pairing with console_start is implied by the verb "Stop" and the sibling tool name. It provides no excluded cases or guidance about console_get_logs or console_clear, so usage context is only implied.

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