coco_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the whole process tree is terminated and that the bridge listener is closed (so subsequent commands will fail), but says nothing about whether unsaved state is lost, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if no process is running.

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 no filler; the action and both affected resources are stated immediately with zero 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?

For a zero-argument teardown with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is stopped and the side effect on the bridge listener. The main gap is not warning that in-emulator state is discarded, which matters for an agent deciding whether to save first.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to interpret and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter meaning the description could add.

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 (stop) and specific resources (the MAME process tree and the bridge listener), so an agent knows this is a full teardown rather than a reset. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like coco_soft_reset and coco_start, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 use case (shutting down the emulator) is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over coco_soft_reset or coco_save_state first. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are stated.

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