capture_stop

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 discloses the action (stop capture) and the return (file and size), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether the capture is saved or deleted), error conditions if no capture is active, or whether the operation is reversible. The return format is partly covered by the output schema, but behavioral caveats are missing.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It contains no fluff and communicates everything needed for the tool's primary function efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, which covers return values. The description explains the main use case and pairing with capture_start. However, it lacks any detail about the connection parameter, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., calling it without an active capture). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of the single 'connection' parameter. The parameter is optional with a default, but the description adds no meaning about what it should contain or how it affects the operation. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('the capture started by capture_start'), and it mentions the output ('report the file and size'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pairing with capture_start, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is used after capture_start by referencing it, giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set includes capture_start, and this tool's purpose is obvious. Slight gap: no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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