Stop recording

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the exact artifacts written to disk, the returned verdict and error details, and the side effect of emailing the report to configured recipients. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no recording is active, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, then the follow-up guidance, then the conditional email delivery detail. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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 is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, which it does thoroughly: verdict, failed checks, errored steps, website error count, file paths, and the trace-viewer command. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description does not need to explain inputs. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Stop the active recording") and immediately lists the artifacts saved (trace.zip, video, screenshots, actions.json, HTML report). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling start_recording and other capture tools.

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?

It establishes the trigger context (ending an active recording) and explicitly routes the agent to suggest_fix for each failed step after this call. It also explains the email-delivery precondition. There is no explicit statement of when not to call it, but the usage path is clear.

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