stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive, that status reporting may lag, and that the expected way to confirm completion is through get_scope_state. This covers the key behavioral traits and caveats an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action and retention scope, the status-lag caveat with verification guidance, and the explicit exclusion of destructive behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 paramless action with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it preserves, how to confirm the result, and what it is not. An agent has enough guidance to invoke it correctly and avoid misinterpreting lagging status.

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 no parameters, so the description bears no burden for parameter explanations. Per the baseline for zero parameters, a 4 is appropriate because there is no missing semantic information about arguments.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Stop acquisition'. It specifies what is retained ('displayed trace and settings') and explicitly disambiguates from destructive operations via 'Not a clear or factory reset.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from run, single, and autoscale.

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 gives clear context: this stops acquisition while preserving the current trace and settings. It also provides a verification path ('confirm STOP via get_scope_state') and an exclusion ('Not a clear or factory reset'). It does not explicitly contrast with run or single, but the intended usage is clear for a zero-parameter action.

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