reachy_stop_webrtc_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does state the core side effect: the WebRTC video/audio stream is stopped. It does not disclose edge-case behavior such as idempotency, whether an active session is required, or whether the underlying connection is closed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to the action and the target resource.

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 control command with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the operation and the resource affected. The only gaps are minor operational details such as error or state-handling behavior.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the exact resource ('WebRTC video/audio stream on the robot'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools start_webrtc_stream and webrtc_stream_status without needing to inspect any schemas.

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 intended use is implied by the verb: call this when the robot's WebRTC stream should be ended. However, the description does not state whether it should follow a successful start, whether it is safe to call when no stream is active, or mention alternatives like webrtc_stream_status.

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