trace_stop

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses concrete behavioral details: passing the same path overwrites the zip, stopping without a trace errors, the default path format, the file-root restriction, and the zip's contents. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and failure modes.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary operational detail: default path, file-root rule, zip contents, viewer command, error condition, overwrite behavior, and browser support. The main purpose is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all decision-relevant context: prerequisites, side effects, path constraints, and error cases. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and anticipate the outcome.

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 one optional path parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the default value, the file-root constraint, the overwrite behavior, and how the path is used. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop the Playwright trace started by trace_start and write the zip to path.' It clearly identifies the tool's role as the counterpart to trace_start, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 description makes the usage context explicit: it must be called after trace_start, and stopping without a started trace is an error. It also states the path constraint relative to --file-root. It does not name alternative tools, but the lifecycle pairing with trace_start is clear enough that no alternative would apply.

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