stop_remote_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Stop' without explaining the consequences, such as whether the session terminates abruptly, what happens to active work, or if it requires specific permissions. The force and graceful parameters are described in the schema, but the description itself adds no transparency about side effects or safety.

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 superfluous words. It is efficient and clearly structured, though it may be under-specified for a tool with four parameters. Still, it earns its place and does not contain fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description as the primary source of context. The description is minimal and does not explain return values, side effects, or the lifecycle of a managed session. With four parameters and a specialized domain (Rail Connector Control), the description is too sparse to provide a complete picture for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not compensate for the missing managedSession description (only a default is provided). With 75% coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts significantly from parameter understanding.

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 ('managed native Rail Connector Control session'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like capture_remote_control or start_remote_control, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when a stop is appropriate, or how it relates to start_remote_control or other session management tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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