neuron_stop_replay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Stop.' It doesn't reveal whether stopping is idempotent (safe to call when nothing is running), whether workflow state is reset or preserved, whether it affects recordings, or what the return value signals. For a state-changing control operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the verb front-loaded; every word earns its place. It is genuinely concise rather than under-specified, though it could have traded a little brevity for behavioral context without hurting readability.

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 simple zero-parameter stop operation, the core invocation is fully specified. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left guessing about failure modes (stopping when nothing is active), state after stop, and whether the operation returns a status — details a richer description could have covered.

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 zero parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 in that case. The description correctly implies the target is implicit ('the current' replay/demo) rather than parameterized, so nothing more is needed here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') with a named resource ('the current workflow replay or demo'), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from sibling stop tools like neuron_stop_watch and neuron_stop_recording by scoping to replay/demo, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 context is implied rather than stated: calling this makes sense when a workflow replay or demo is in progress, which the word 'current' hints at. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a replay must be running), and no contrast with closely related siblings like neuron_stop_recording.

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