live_memory_stop

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does disclose real side effects: it stops the background polling thread and kills the OpenOCD process, then returns statistics. It doesn't state what happens with an unknown/stale session_id or whether the killed OpenOCD process is shared with other tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 summary sentence first, then the mechanism, then a compact Args/Returns block. Every line adds information; no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully previews them (duration, read count, error count, output path). For a one-parameter lifecycle terminator this is nearly complete; only error/failure behavior on a bad session_id is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it supplies it, naming session_id as the ID obtained from live_memory_start. That provenance is the key fact an agent needs to supply a valid value, though no format/example is given.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Stop a live memory monitoring session") with a scope that clearly separates it from live_memory_start, live_memory_read and live_memory_write. An agent can tell what it terminates without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the session lifecycle — you stop a session you started — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the neighbouring alternatives (e.g. debug_session_stop, serial_disconnect) that could be confused with it. The exclusivity condition is left to inference.

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