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 of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes destructive side effects ('kills Chrome process; all open tabs closed; unsaved data lost'), prerequisites, and return values ('termination success confirmation'), giving the agent complete understanding of the tool's behavior and consequences.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for side effects, prerequisites, returns, usage contexts, and alternatives. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, behavioral consequences, prerequisites, return expectations, usage scenarios, and alternatives. Given the complexity of a process termination tool, this description leaves no gaps for the agent to understand what this tool does and when to use it.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on behavioral aspects. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 clearly states the specific action ('gracefully terminates') and target resource ('managed Chrome instance'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'restart_chrome' which performs a different action on the same resource. It explicitly mentions closing debugging connections, which further clarifies its scope beyond just stopping Chrome.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to clean up resources, prevent zombie processes, or end debugging session') and when to use an alternative ('restart_chrome to restart instead of stop'). It also states prerequisites ('Chrome instance must be running'), giving clear context for proper usage.

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