glass_stop

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining the graceful shutdown behavior, the slower force-termination fallback, the loss of session-scoped logs and a11y element ids, the persistence of saved baselines, and the no-resume guarantee. This fully discloses the destructive consequences of the call.

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 longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries relevant operational information: shutdown mechanics, session scope, persistence, no-resume, and usage frequency. It is front-loaded with the core action and then builds context logically without unnecessary 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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and the destructive nature of the operation, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what will happen, what will be lost, what will survive, when the tool should be called, when it should not be called, and what happens when no session exists.

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%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately does not invent parameter-related detail, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is satisfied.

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 running app and end the session.' It clearly differentiates from glass_start by stating there is no resume and only glass_start runs the app again as a fresh session, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools.

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 is explicit about when to use the tool: it is not needed between steps of a task, one session can be driven for as long as needed, and it errors if no session is running. It also directs the agent to glass_start as the only alternative for starting a fresh session.

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