Stop game

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful state information: in headless mode it tears down the browser and dev server (processes are killed), and in live mode it hands control back to the human and disconnects. The only gap is how the mode is determined.

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?

Two mode-labelled clauses, no filler, front-loaded with the discriminating mode names. Every word carries information.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing piece: what actually happens to the environment in each mode. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what 'disconnect' ends or whether the session state is discarded.

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 there is no parameter meaning to convey and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 the concrete effects of stopping: closing the browser and dev server in headless mode, resuming the human's game and disconnecting in live mode. It never uses the word 'stop' or explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like game_pause, but the mode-specific outcomes make the operation unambiguous.

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?

By naming the two operating modes (headless vs. live) and what each yields, it implies when the tool is appropriate and what state the session ends in. It does not say when to prefer this over game_pause or game_rewind, nor whether the caller must first be in a running session, so routing guidance is only implicit.

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