Stop recording

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a simple 'stop' by explicitly stating that recorded steps are preserved for export_flow, which is a non-obvious and valuable side effect. It does not detail what happens if no recording is active, but the disclosure of the key data-preservation behavior is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: the main action is stated first ('Stop recording'), followed by a parenthetical that adds essential context without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no wasted text.

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 simple, zero-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the necessary information: what it does, what scope it applies to, and what happens to the data. The mention of 'export_flow' connects it to the overall workflow, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema is trivially 100% covered and the baseline per rubric is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning since there are none, and it correctly avoids adding unnecessary detail.

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 recording') with a specific resource and scope ('the current session'), and the parenthetical 'keeps recorded steps for export_flow' adds crucial differentiation from simply stopping an app. This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like 'stop_app' and 'start_recording'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after recording a session and before exporting, as indicated by 'keeps recorded steps for export_flow'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow implication is strong enough to guide correct usage without additional wording.

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