stop_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the shutdown mechanism (SIGINT for buffer flush, 15s wait, SIGTERM backstop) and the exact return payload. An agent knows this terminates a process, how long it may block, and what it gets back.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks that are easy to scan. The parenthetical explaining that the script traps SIGINT is mildly redundant with the preceding clause, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating every returned field (session_id, text, line_count, duration_sec, transcript_path, status). For a one-parameter, no-annotation tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 0%, so the description must supply the meaning of session_id, and it does: optional, defaulting to the active session. It stops short of describing the id's format or the failure behavior when no session is active.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the active (or named) recording') plus the outcome ('return the final transcript'), which implicitly separates it from get_transcript and start_recording. It never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 default behavior ('session_id defaults to the currently-active session') implies the common usage context, so an agent can infer when to call it without arguments. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as get_transcript for peeking without stopping.

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