rba_stop_all_watchers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states the action ('stop') and scope ('every active'), but it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether it affects watchers from other sessions, or what the return value indicates. For a mutation tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. It does not waste words and is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does. It could have added a note about the irreversible nature of stopping watchers or alternatival usage, but the core context is complete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a specific resource ('every active RBA live-edit file watcher'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_unwatch_file (which stops a single watcher) and rba_list_watchers (which lists watchers).

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 implies the tool is for stopping all watchers at once, as opposed to targeting a single one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like rba_unwatch_file, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats. The usage context is implied by the word 'every' but not explicitly spelled out.

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