stop_record_bag

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It goes beyond a simple operation statement by explaining that metadata is read with allow_unindexed=True and that duration_sec is based on bag-internal timestamps under use_sim_time, warning about sim clock drift. This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not mention effects like what happens to the bag file or error cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and result, and the second provides a concise caveat. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Although the description is clear about the core purpose and a subtle metadata behavior, it omits essential contextual information needed to invoke the tool correctly: the relationship between handle and bag_handle, the purpose of confirm_token, and whether any handle is required in practice. With no annotations and an unexplained optional-looking schema, this is not complete enough for confident use.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The prose mentions a 'handle' which gives a minimal clue about the handle parameter, but bag_handle and confirm_token remain completely unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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') and a specific resource ('running background rosbag recording handle'), and adds that it retrieves metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_bag, which starts recording.

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 phrase 'running background' implies the tool is for already-started background recordings, providing implied context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as record_bag, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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