sc_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not say whether stopping resets playback position, whether it errors or no-ops when no playback is active, or whether it affects other sessions — all relevant for a state-changing control operation.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and its scope with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place by naming both the effect and the originating tool.

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, no-output-schema control tool, the description covers the essential purpose and counterpart. It stops short of the operational details an agent might need — behavior on error, whether state is reset, or confirmation of effect — leaving it minimally viable rather than 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to add and the description does not need to compensate. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty parameter set.

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?

States a specific verb (Stop) and resource (realtime playback) and ties it to the sibling sc_play that initiates it, which lets an agent pair the two without ambiguity. It does not distinguish itself from the other siblings (sc_check, sc_render), but those are clearly different operations, so this is close to fully clear.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by naming sc_play as the initiator, it suggests this tool is only applicable after sc_play has started playback. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no statement about calling it when nothing is playing, and no named alternative.

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