Stop Watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not say whether stopping preserves or discards watch results, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if no watcher is running — meaningful gaps for a state-changing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though it is so short that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered rather than being maximally informative per word.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no parameters to document, so the description needn't explain results. However, with no annotations and only one sentence, the state transition (what stopping does to watch results) is underspecified for a tool sitting alongside get_watch_results.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema already declares an empty object with additionalProperties=false. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless 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?

States a specific verb (Stop) and resource (the active folder watcher), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling start_watch. It does not explicitly name siblings or restate scope, but the action is 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to halt an already-running watcher. There is no guidance on behavior when no watcher is active, nor any reference to alternatives like get_watch_results for retrieving accumulated output.

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