switch_stop_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It specifies the primary effect (stopping and disconnecting) but omits behavioral details like whether this terminates the target process, cleans up breakpoints, requires an active session, or is reversible.

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 single sentence is perfectly efficient with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Stop') and immediately qualifies the scope ('gdb-multiarch session') and secondary target ('Yuzu'), delivering exactly the information needed for tool selection.

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 zero-parameter lifecycle tool, the description is adequate, mentioning both the debugger (gdb-multiarch) and the target platform (Yuzu). However, it lacks details about the terminal state of the debugging target (detached vs. terminated) that would be necessary for complete operational confidence.

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 input schema has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed for this operation, though it does not explicitly state 'no arguments required'.

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 uses specific verbs ('Stop', 'disconnect') and identifies the exact resources affected ('gdb-multiarch session', 'Yuzu'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its obvious sibling 'switch_start_session' and operational tools like 'gdb_interrupt' by specifying session termination and disconnection.

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 the description implies this is a cleanup/termination tool, it provides no explicit guidance on when to invoke it versus pausing execution or when to avoid using it (e.g., during critical operations). The inverse relationship with 'switch_start_session' is clear but not stated.

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