stop_inspecting_native

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool stops inspection mode but doesn't explain what that entails—e.g., whether it's a safe operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to ongoing inspections, or if there are side effects like clearing highlights. For a tool that likely changes system state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core action.

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?

Given the complexity (a tool that likely stops an active mode), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'stopping' entails, potential errors if not in inspection mode, or return values. For a state-changing tool in a development/debugging context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('selectNextElement') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value here.

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 target ('native element inspection mode'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential alternatives like 'disconnect' or 'stop_profiling', which are sibling tools that might also end certain modes or connections. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that inspection mode must be active), exclusions, or related tools like 'start_inspecting_native' or 'get_inspecting_native_status'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to apply it correctly in workflows.

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