network_stop_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action but does not clarify whether stopping is idempotent, what happens if recording was never started, or whether previously recorded requests remain available. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for a state-changing 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 conveys the essential action clearly and efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the target. Some behavioral details like idempotency are absent, but the core invocation context is sufficiently clear for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 single parameter targetId is fully described in the schema as 'Target ID of the tab', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Stop recording') and resource ('network requests for a tab'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like network_start_recording and network_get_requests. An agent can immediately understand what operation this tool performs.

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 intended usage is implied: it is the counterpart to network_start_recording and should be used when recording should end. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or lifecycle expectations.

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