stop_profiling

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions stopping and saving but does not indicate whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or behaves differently if no active recording exists. This lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words, every sentence contributes to clarity. Exemplary conciseness.

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 description is adequate for a simple stop command with well-defined parameters. It explains the output file usage. However, it lacks error handling details and return value explanation, which is acceptable since no output schema exists and the task is straightforward.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by linking pid and recordingId to the start_profiling tool, ensuring consistency. This extra context improves parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool stops an active JFR recording and saves it to a specific file, with a distinction between new and old files for before/after comparison. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like start_profiling and list_jfr_recordings.

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 explains how to use the output files (new vs old) for comparison, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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