roku_debug_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states 'Stop all threads' without explaining consequences. It does not say whether the debug session terminates, if the app resumes, or if this action is destructive.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter command, though it might be too terse to convey full context.

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?

With no annotations and only a three-word description, the tool's role in the debugging workflow is unclear. The agent has no information about when to invoke this versus the many sibling tools, making the description incomplete for its environment.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to add parameter details.

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 'Stop all threads' uses a specific verb and direct object, leaving no ambiguity about the action. It is distinct from sibling tools like continue, step, or thread listing, even without explicitly naming them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about the debugging workflow, such as when to halt execution or what state it should be in, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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