Stop replay and independently verify its stopped state.
Stop replay and independently verify its stopped state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | Yes | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it independently verifies the stopped state, but it does not explain what happens if replay is already stopped, how verification failure is reported, or what permissions/rate limits apply.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It puts the core action and verification behavior first.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers the core action and verification intent. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the verification result looks like or how failures are surfaced, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent invoking the tool.
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%, so both target_id and expected_layout_id are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Stop replay,' then adds independent verification of the stopped state. It is distinguishable from replay_start/replay_status by implication, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as replay_status or emergency_stop.
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: call this when replay is running and you want it stopped plus verified. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives such as checking replay_status first or using emergency_stop instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.