cdl.stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the crucial behavioral quirk that CDL collection cannot actually be turned off and that the tool only marks the window inactive. This adds significant context beyond the tool name, though it omits details like idempotence or side effects on already-stopped windows.

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 sentence that front-loads the most important caveat ('collection is continuous... cannot be turned on or off') before stating the actual behavior. No redundant words or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral nuance. It could optionally explain the coverage window concept or what happens after stopping, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools like cdl.start, it is reasonably complete.

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 only parameter, 'session', is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides only the type and required flag (0% schema description coverage). The parameter is simple and probably understandable from sibling tools, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema coverage, so minimal credit is given.

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The description clearly identifies the tool's action: it marks the CDL coverage window as no longer active. It also directly addresses the potential misconception about stopping collection, which distinguishes it from a generic 'stop' command and from siblings like cdl.start.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to end a coverage window. However, there is no explicit comparison with alternatives such as cdl.start or guidance on when not to use it, so it meets only the 'implied usage' bar.

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