Stop emulator

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

destructiveHint=true already tells the agent this is a destructive operation, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds only that the target must be running and how the serial looks; it says nothing about whether the shutdown is graceful, whether emulator state/AVD data survives, or what happens if the serial is unknown.

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 front-loaded sentence with the operation first and the identifier format second; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but the missing link between obtaining a serial and calling stop, plus no error behavior, leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden; the inline example 'emulator-5554' usefully illustrates the serial format that the regex pattern encodes, but there is no explanation of where to obtain a serial (e.g. emulator_list).

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 specific verb and resource ('Shut down a running emulator') and narrows to operation by serial, which clearly separates it from emulator_start and emulator_list. Only the sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 counterpart emulator_start and the 'running emulator' qualifier, but the description never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what precondition (emulator must exist) matters.

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