as_logcat_watch_stop

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns JSON with final process info and can stop 'any managed process'. This provides some context beyond annotations, but the behavioral impact of stopping (e.g., process termination, inability to resume) is not detailed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, parameter usage, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers the return value and parameter. However, it could mention that the watch must exist or that stopping an already stopped watch is idempotent (consistent with idempotentHint). This is a minor gap.

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 schema already describes the proc_id parameter ('Process id from as_proc_list / a watch id.') with 100% coverage. The description redundantly restates 'proc_id (the watch_id)' but adds no new meaning. Therefore, the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('a running logcat watch (or any managed process)'). It distinguishes from siblings like as_logcat_watch_start and as_logcat_watch_read. However, it could be more precise about which managed processes it can stop (e.g., those started by as_logcat_watch_start or as_proc_list).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., as_proc_stop for stopping arbitrary processes). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the watch must be started first) or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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