metashunt_stop_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of side effects and clearly discloses that the server stops listening, the device continues measuring, and the current session is finalized on disk. It does not mention reversibility or errors, but the core behavioral impact is transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant or filler content. Every clause adds useful information about the tool's effect and side effects.

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 parameterless stop command, the description provides enough context: it clarifies the server-side scope, confirms the device continues, and states that the session is finalized. It does not discuss return values or error states, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is not a significant gap.

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 complete, so there are no parameter details to add. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, this is fully adequate.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop recording') and identifies the specific resource and scope ('the server just stops listening', 'current session is finalized on disk'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like start_capture.

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 some behavioral context (device keeps measuring while server stops listening), which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state use cases or compare with alternatives. A more direct 'use when you want to end server-side capture without halting the device' would strengthen this dimension.

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