device.stop_emulator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes tags 'approval required', 'device mutation', and 'risk:dangerous' which disclose that this is a destructive, risky operation requiring approval. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not elaborate on side effects or reversibility. Given the absence of annotations, this is a reasonable disclosure.

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: a single sentence with front-loaded warnings followed by the core action. Every part is informative, and there is no wasted text. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and risk.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete: it fails to explain the 'serial' parameter, and does not describe any preconditions, output, or post-conditions. The warnings cover safety, but the parameter gap and lack of usage context leave the agent without enough information to invoke the tool reliably.

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 input schema has one parameter 'serial' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'serial' at all, leaving its meaning, format, and how to obtain it entirely unexplained. The agent has no guidance on what to provide for this parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Stop'), a clear resource ('Android emulator'), and the method ('adb emu kill'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like device.start_emulator or device.list_devices, so an agent can identify its purpose 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. However, the purpose is self-evident from the action, and the presence of sibling tools like device.start_emulator makes the usage context clear by contrast, but no explicit guidance is given.

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