osc_stop_emulator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') but does not describe what happens upon invocation (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires permissions, has side effects like terminating processes, or provides confirmation). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Stop the running X32 emulator server') contributes essential information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It does not explain behavioral aspects like what 'Stop' entails, potential errors, or confirmation of success, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without annotations.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, aligning with the input schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Stop') and target resource ('the running X32 emulator server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'osc_start_emulator' and 'osc_get_emulator_status'. It uses precise terminology that aligns with the tool's name and function.

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 implies usage when an emulator is running, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'osc_start_emulator' to start it, or 'osc_get_emulator_status' to check status). It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving context inferred from the verb 'Stop'.

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