trace_stop

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior, so the description adds value beyond them by explaining the specific consequence: a forced kill prevents apitrace from flushing, losing the tail of the trace. This is useful behavioral context not present in the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important caveat about forced kills is presented immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter stopping tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, what input matters, and a critical failure mode. The output schema covers return behavior. It does not explain how to discover session IDs, but that is inferable from sibling tools like list_sessions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It implicitly references the force parameter through 'forced kill' and identifies 'session' as the target, but it never explicitly explains either parameter's expected format or how to obtain a valid session value.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a session and report the resulting trace.' This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_status, trace_launch, and list_sessions.

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 gives clear operational guidance: prefer quitting the game in-game first, and warns that a forced kill can lose the trace tail. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the when-to-do-it guidance is concrete and actionable.

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