stop_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool stops recording and returns captured actions, but lacks critical behavioral details: what 'captured actions' includes (e.g., clicks, inputs), whether recording is automatically saved or discarded, if this requires specific permissions, or error handling for inactive recording. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise 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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'stop' action) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'captured actions' entails, how they're returned, or prerequisites like needing an active recording. For a tool that likely changes state and returns data, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the optional 'pageId' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or detracting.

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 action ('stop recording') and outcome ('return captured actions'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_console_capture' or 'stop_network_capture', which are also stop operations for different recording types.

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 prerequisites (e.g., that recording must be active via 'start_recording'), nor does it clarify relationships with sibling tools like 'stop_console_capture' or 'stop_network_capture'.

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