android_stop_emulator

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. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't describe what happens during the stop process (e.g., graceful shutdown vs. force kill), whether it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure message). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how stopping works, error handling), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for an agent to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'avdName' parameter clearly documented as 'AVD name to stop'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what an AVD is or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and target ('a running Android emulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'android_start_emulator' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other stopping tools like 'ios_shutdown_simulator' in the sibling list.

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., the emulator must be running), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'android_list_emulators' for checking status or 'ios_shutdown_simulator' for iOS devices.

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