gameplay_pie_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether unsaved changes are discarded), behavior when no PIE session is active, or any return value. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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?

A single, tight sentence that precisely conveys the action without filler. Every word is necessary, and the structure is ideal for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps: it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or post-conditions. A short note about error behavior or state changes would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so there is no need for parameter clarification. The description appropriately omits parameter details, aligning with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('End') and identifies the resource ('current PIE session'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool gameplay_pie_start. While 'PIE' is not expanded, it is a well-known term in Unreal Engine context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implied by the name and pair with gameplay_pie_start: this tool ends what the opposite starts. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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