Stop buffering LCU events

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the primary behavior (closing the tap) and a key side effect (buffered entries remain readable via lol_events_poll). It doesn't mention idempotency or behavior if called without a prior start, but those are minor for a stop operation. This adds value beyond what would be obvious from the name alone.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Close the event tap'), and the only additional detail (buffered entries remain readable) is essential context. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does and the key consequence. No missing information that would prevent correct usage. The simple nature of the operation means no additional context is required.

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 description correctly makes no mention of parameters. The schema is empty (100% coverage), and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description provides no additional parameter guidance, but none is needed.

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 ('Close') and a resource ('event tap'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start and poll. It also states the outcome: buffered entries stay readable, removing ambiguity about its effect.

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 description implicitly says 'stop buffering' and notes that buffered entries remain accessible, which tells the agent it's used after events have been started. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative, though the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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