stop_js_profile

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action and a side effect (saving an artifact), but does not explain what 'artifact' means, whether the profiler must be running, failure conditions, or any other consequences. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: 'Stop JS CPU profiler and save artifact' effectively communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately concise 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?

For a simple 0-parameter tool, the description covers the primary action, but the term 'artifact' is vague and there is no mention of the profiling workflow, where the artifact is stored, or how it related to sibling tools like start_js_profile. Given no annotations or output schema, some context is missing.

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, so the schema is trivially covered. Even though the description adds no parameter details, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is nothing to clarify.

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'), the specific resource ('JS CPU profiler'), and the outcome ('save artifact'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling stop_react_profile by explicitly naming 'JS CPU profiler', 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool, such as 'call after start_js_profile' or 'prefer this over capture_js_profile'. The workflow context is only implicit from the sibling tool names, but the description does not provide any decision-making support.

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