stop_playback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not say whether the playhead position is retained or reset, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if transport is already stopped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing needs to be added for it to be readable and direct.

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 zero-parameter, zero-annotation, output-schema-less action, the description is nearly sufficient: the scope (global transport) is stated. It could add one clause about state effects or idempotency, but little else is required at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb (stop) and resource (global transport playback), which implicitly distinguishes it from clip-level siblings like stop_clip and stop_all_clips. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but the 'global transport' scope is clear enough for correct selection.

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 phrase 'global transport' implies this is the master play/stop control rather than a clip-level stop, which mildly guides usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over stop_all_clips or stop_clip, nor any preconditions (e.g. that playback must be running).

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