stop_timer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (stop timer) but doesn't reveal the return value, whether it errors if no timer is running, whether it's idempotent, or what state changes occur beyond stopping. For a state-mutating action with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Single clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb and action. Not padded with unnecessary qualifiers.

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?

There's no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter documented by schema. For a mutating action on a timer, the description doesn't explain tie-break behavior if multiple timers exist, error handling when no timer is running, or what the response indicates. It's functional but leaves meaningful edge cases unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'team_id' documented as 'The workspace/team ID'. The description mentions 'authenticated user' but doesn't explain why team_id is required or how it relates to the timer lookup. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, 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 "Stop the currently running timer for the authenticated user" has a specific verb (Stop) and resource (the currently running timer), and clarifies the scope (authenticated user, single currently-running timer). It distinguishes from siblings like start_timer and get_running_timer. However, it doesn't explicitly state what happens if no timer is running, which would be slightly more precise.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Context implies you'd use this after checking get_running_timer, but the description doesn't mention this relationship or any prerequisite (e.g., verifying a timer exists first). No explicit when-not or alternatives are given.

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