stop_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'stop gracefully and finalize the clip,' which implies an ending but lacks specifics: what happens if no active session exists? Is it safe to call? Does it block or return immediately? The word 'finalize' suggests a save/compile step, but no side effects, errors, or state changes are disclosed. This is minimal and leaves key behaviors opaque.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is too terse to be informative; it doesn't earn its place because it omits critical context. It's not verbose, but under-specification is a problem. A 3 reflects that it is structurally fine but under-delivers on content.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the input, the expected behavior on success/failure, or any prerequisites (e.g., an active recording). An agent would struggle to know what sessionId refers to or what to do with the result. The tool appears simple but the description doesn't make it safely callable.

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 explain the parameter. It does not mention sessionId at all, leaving the agent to guess that it identifies the recording to stop. Though the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds zero meaning beyond what the schema already provides (just the name and type). This is a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 action ('stop a recording') and distinguishes it from the obvious sibling 'start_recording'. The verb 'stop' and resource 'recording' are unambiguous, and the phrase 'finalize the clip' adds a hint of the outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should follow start_recording, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like mark_event or inspect_clip are not referenced. The only implicit hint is the relationship to start_recording, but this is left to the agent to infer.

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