performance_stop_trace

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, marking this as a state-changing operation, and the description adds nothing beyond the name's implication. It does not say whether the recorded data is discarded when saved, whether filePath is optional, or what occurs if no trace is active — all material for a mutation tool whose annotation coverage is minimal.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the action, the resource and the target. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but silent on the outcomes that matter: whether trace data survives the stop, how filePath relates to persistence, and the required precondition of an active trace.

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 100%, so pageId and filePath are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it omits that filePath is the mechanism by which the trace data is persisted rather than lost.

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 (active performance trace recording) plus the target scope (target webpage). It is distinguishable from performance_start_trace by the verb alone, but it does not explicitly name the relationship to that sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 by the pairing with performance_start_trace — an agent can infer this must be called after a trace is started — but the description never states that a trace must be active or what happens if none is running. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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