capture_stop

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real post-condition context that annotations lack: it returns stats plus a workspace-relative path and abs_path, and confirms the captured artifact persists and is reusable by other tools.

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?

One front-loaded sentence; the core action leads and the return-value detail follows. The nested parenthetical with three tool names is dense but every clause carries usable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden, describing stats and both path forms. Annotations cover safety, so the only gap is not stating the precondition failure mode when no capture is active.

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 the single session_id parameter. It only says 'on a session' and never names or qualifies session_id (e.g., that it is the id from capture_start), so it adds little beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('the active capture on a session'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling capture_start. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 clearly implied by 'the active capture' (i.e., use after capture_start while a capture is running), and the description routes the agent downstream by naming capture_frames, session_timeline, and replay:<path>. It does not state what happens if no capture is active, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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