stop_live_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and return type but does not disclose behavior when no watcher is running, whether it is idempotent, or any potential side effects beyond stopping. For a simple stop operation, this is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. It is concise and free of unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter stop action with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return type and the action. However, it could add a note about behavior when no watcher exists, which is a minor gap in an otherwise simple tool.

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 zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The mention of the return dict adds some context, and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain fields. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('the live file watcher'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like start_live_watch (opposite action) and get_live_watch_status (status query).

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 usage: call this to stop the watcher started by start_live_watch. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from siblings and the straightforward action make the intended use clear.

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