performance_stop_trace

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

The description indicates the tool stops a recording, consistent with the annotation 'readOnlyHint: false'. However, it does not mention the side effect of saving trace data to a file, which is crucial. The input schema covers this, but the description could be more transparent about the overall behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly states 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits important context such as the need to have a previously started trace and the fact that the tool saves data to a file. This gap reduces completeness.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'filePath' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional information about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('performance trace recording'), and the scope ('on the selected webpage'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'performance_start_trace' and 'performance_analyze_insight'.

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 that a trace recording must be active, but it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., must have started a trace with 'performance_start_trace') or provide guidance on when not to use the tool (e.g., no active trace). This is adequate but lacks explicit guidelines.

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