Stop daemon

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

The description explicitly states the destructive behavior ('stop the daemon', 'close every browser'), which aligns with the annotations' destructiveHint: true. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by specifying that all launched browsers are closed, not just the daemon process. No contradiction with annotations.

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, clear sentence that directly states the action and its effect. There is no wasted or redundant text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already signal destructiveness, the description captures the essential behavior. It could be slightly improved by noting whether the operation is reversible or if there are any prerequisites, but overall it is adequate for a simple 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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain any parameters. It correctly adds no unnecessary parameter information, leaving the schema sufficient on its own.

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 specific verbs ('stop', 'close') and clearly identifies the resource ('dev-browser daemon' and 'every browser it launched'). It unambiguously states the tool's action and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like dev_browser_run or dev_browser_status.

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 implies this tool is used when the daemon should be terminated, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of cleanup, side effects, or prerequisites like ensuring no critical work is lost). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool reference.

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