stop_ir_broadcasting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it merely restates the tool name without adding any side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. For a state-changing action, the agent doesn't know whether the operation is idempotent, what state it leaves the IR broadcaster in, or if any other IR-related functions are affected.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Stop' and immediately states the target resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, achieving excellent conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is extremely simple, with no parameters and a likely straightforward output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks any context about when this tool should be invoked relative to other IR functions, such as whether it only stops broadcasting or also affects IR following/evading. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would make it more complete, but it remains minimally viable for a zero-parameter stop action.

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, so there is no parameter burden for the description. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description meets this baseline by not needing to explain any parameter syntax or semantics. The schema is empty and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related content.

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 clear resource ('IR broadcasting'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_ir_broadcasting or stop_ir_following. It unambiguously states the tool's primary function and scope, making it easy for an agent to identify the correct action.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to other IR-related tools. It doesn't mention that it stops a broadcast started by start_ir_broadcasting, leaving the usage to be inferred solely from the tool name. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, which is a significant gap.

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