browser_perf_stop_coverage

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool stops coverage and returns results, which is the core behavior. However, it doesn't detail side effects like whether coverage data is cleared or if results are cumulative, but for a straightforward operation, this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. References browser_docs for deeper detail, keeping the description compact and front-loaded. Every part serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema, so description explains return value (used vs unused code) at a high level. This is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose, and the reference to browser_docs fills in details. Slightly better explicit format description would make it fully 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?

No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline score of 4 applies. Description doesn't need to add meaning beyond the schema, which is already fully covered.

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?

Description clearly states the action (stop coverage) and result (used vs unused code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_perf_start_coverage and browser_perf_get_metrics by specifying it stops coverage and returns results. The reference to browser_docs provides additional context.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use, the purpose is inherently tied to starting coverage first. For a simple paired tool with browser_perf_start_coverage, the usage is clear, though explicit guidance on sequencing would improve it.

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