stop_profiler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the main side effect (stopping the profiler) and that summary results are returned. However, it does not describe behavior in edge cases such as the profiler not running, whether stopping is destructive to collected data, or whether the call is idempotent.

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 sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated immediately.

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 an output schema, this description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, the action, and the expected result. The main missing context is usage preconditions and edge-case behavior, but those are not required simply to invoke the tool successfully.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description cannot meaningfully add parameter semantics. This matches the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Stop'), identifies the exact resource ('wlanpi-profiler'), and states the outcome ('return summary results'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_profiler and get_profiler_status.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as start_profiler, get_profiler_status, or stop_service. It also does not mention prerequisites like the profiler needing to be running.

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