replay_stop

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action. It does not specify what happens when called without an active replay, whether it has side effects, or if any prerequisites exist. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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 at three words, but it is also front-loaded and to the point. However, it could include a bit more context (e.g., 'Stops the currently active replay mode') without losing conciseness.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any details about return values, error conditions, or state changes, which would enhance completeness for a tool that might behave differently depending on replay state.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema fully covers the (empty) input.

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 'Stop replay mode' clearly identifies the verb (stop) and resource (replay mode), and the name 'replay_stop' aligns perfectly. Sibling tools like 'replay_start' and 'replay_step' confirm it's distinct, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and sibling context imply its use when replay is active, but no when-not or error conditions are mentioned. The simple nature of the tool partially compensates, but guidance is absent.

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