Stop the game

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the last output, which is useful context, but says nothing about behavior when no game is running or how the output is delivered. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 with zero waste. The action and its relationship to run_project are stated immediately.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it stops and that it returns the last output. It could note the failure mode when no project is running, but the definition is largely 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 baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it does not add confusing or misleading parameter claims.

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 ('the game started with run_project'), and explicitly names the sibling tool that started it. An agent can immediately distinguish it from run_project and the rest of the project/scene siblings.

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 pairing with run_project clearly implies when to use it: after a game has been launched. No explicit when-not condition is given (e.g., what happens when no game is running), but the context is unambiguous and sufficient to select the tool.

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