stop-simulator-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses side effects (frees resources, reaps TV-control daemons, leaves native devtools/services running on iOS/Android/TV, cascades to debugger on Chromium and loses console history), return format, and silent failure behavior. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands with usage guidance and platform nuances. Every sentence contributes distinct, high-value information, and despite its length, there is no filler or redundant detail.

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 tool's multi-platform complexity and lack of an output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains platform-specific behaviors, return value, failure mode, and interactions with sibling tools like 'debugger-connect'. No critical details are omitted.

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 coverage is 100% and the property description already explains 'udid' thoroughly. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter, only re-contextualizes it within platform examples, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('transport session') with platform-specific clarifications (simulator-server process, CDP WebSocket). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'stop-all-simulator-servers' by emphasizing this targets a single device, 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('done interacting with one device but want to keep others running, or to restart a wedged transport') and when not to use it, directing users to 'stop-all-simulator-servers' for draining native services. It also provides platform-specific guidance for Chromium and TV targets.

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