Stop Debug Session

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by warning that unsaved work in the running app is lost outright and that the same confirmation string is returned regardless of whether anything was running. The prerequisite on the IDE adds operational context. It does not state the failure mode when the IDE is not running, which keeps it from 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?

Three tight sentences, each covering a distinct need: what it acts on, the data-loss consequence, the return value, and the prerequisite. Front-loaded with the action rather than preamble.

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 annotations already declaring destructive/idempotent behavior, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the causally linked sibling, the irreversibility, the constant return value, and the environment prerequisite.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Ends the Xojo IDE's debug session by killing the app it is running") and ties the resource to the sibling calls that started it (run_project, agentic_run). An agent can distinguish this from run/build tools without opening the 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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (after run_project or agentic_run) plus the prerequisite that the IDE must be running with the project open. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling debug_control, which an agent could reasonably consider for stopping a session, so it is not full when/when-not guidance.

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