ue5_stop_pie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only conveys that this is a mutating action. It does not state what happens when no PIE session is running (error vs. no-op), whether the stop saves or discards state, or whether the operation is reversible. The word 'running' hints at a precondition but nothing more.

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 English clause is minimal and front-loaded with the action verb 'Stop,' earning its place with no wasted words. One small deduction: the Chinese clause merely translates the English sentence and adds no new semantic information, so it does not fully earn its place for an English-language agent.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is callable and adequate: an agent knows what action will be taken. However, it leaves meaningful gaps — the failure behavior when no session is active, the return/acknowledgment format, and side effects on the editor state — which a richer description or annotations should cover.

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 the baseline is 4 and the schema already fully describes the interface (an empty object). The description correctly adds no parameter information because none exists; there is nothing further it needs to explain.

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') with an exact resource ('the running PIE/Simulate session'), leaving no ambiguity about the action. It is inherently distinguished from siblings, especially ue5_start_pie (its functional complement) and ue5_read_pie_state (a read operation), purely by the action word.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. It is a bare statement of function; an agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is the counterpart to ue5_start_pie.

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