stop_recording

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it ends the recording, triggers transcription+paste, targets the window that had focus, and is idempotent with a specific return value for the no-recording case. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and meets it well.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and include important details like idempotency and return value. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, target window, and idempotency case. However, it does not specify the return value for a successful stop (only for the already-stopped case), which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information (as none exist), so this score 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 verb 'End' and the resource 'current recording', and specifies the subsequent action of triggering the transcription + paste pipeline against the focused window. It distinguishes from siblings like start_recording and cancel_recording by describing a complete pipeline.

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 when a recording is active and wants to stop and process it. It does not explicitly contrast with cancel_recording or toggle_recording, but the context of 'transcription + paste' suggests when to use this vs. a simple cancel. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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