stop_transcription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool ends the session, stops audio capture, and returns statistics, which are important side effects. It does not mention data retention/clearance or error behavior, but the core state-changing behavior is transparently described.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler or redundant information. Every clause adds meaning: the action, completeness, return value, and side effect on audio capture.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description sufficiently covers the purpose and side effects for invocation. It could mention what the returned statistics include, but this is not essential for selecting and calling the tool correctly, especially given the clear sibling context.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and clearly identifies the resource ('the current transcription session'), while adding key scope ('completely' and 'return statistics'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like pause_transcription by emphasizing that this is a full termination, not a temporary pause.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to end the session entirely rather than pause it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to distinguish from pause/resume, but explicit exclusion of alternatives is missing.

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