jev_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the session_id becomes invalid immediately and that the operation is scoped to the Jev-owned target, which is valuable mutating-effect context. It could go further by noting what happens to all tabs within that target, but the phrase 'close one Jev-owned Chrome target' strongly implies that scope.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives usage context and a key side-effect guarantee. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter cleanup tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and the most important behavioral consequence. The only notable gap is that it assumes the agent already knows where session_id comes from, but the sibling tools and parameter name make that reasonably inferable.

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 provides little meaning for session_id beyond 'becomes invalid immediately.' It does not explain that the session_id must correspond to a previously opened Jev-owned target, how to obtain it, or what formats or constraints apply. The name is self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no parameter guidance.

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 ('Close'), names the resource ('one Jev-owned Chrome target'), and states the secondary action ('remove its session'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jev_browse, jev_status, and jev_extract_products, which cover navigation, status checks, and extraction rather than cleanup.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'when product research is complete or after an unrecoverable block.' It also clarifies a non-effect ('never affects tabs outside the Jev-owned browser target'), which helps an agent reason about side effectsz. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to call it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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