stop_chrome

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses destructive side effects (kills the process, closes tabs, loses unsaved data), scope (only that instance, others keep running), prerequisites (instance must be running), and return value (success confirmation). This is comprehensive and prevents surprises.

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?

The description is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries relevant information: action, side effects, prerequisites, return, use cases, and alternatives. The core action is front-loaded, and the text is well-structured. While verbose, it is not wasteful, earning a 4.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, side effects, scope, prerequisites, return value, when to use, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and anticipate consequences. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (instance_id), and the description repeats the same information ('selected by instance_id', 'default instance when omitted'). No additional semantic meaning is added beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (gracefully terminates) on a specific resource (Chrome instance identified by instance_id), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like restart_chrome and close_instance by naming them and their different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('clean up resources, prevent zombie processes, or end a debugging session') and lists alternatives with conditions ('restart_chrome' to restart, 'close_instance' to also remove from registry). This provides clear routing for the agent.

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