stop_playback

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

The description explicitly notes that the response reports the pre-command state, which is behavioral information beyond the annotation (only indicates non-destructive). This helps the agent understand the tool's effect on output. The absence of any contradiction with annotations is noted.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with the action clearly stated first. The note is secondary but important. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral note about the response reporting pre-command state. This completes the picture for the agent, making the tool fully understandable without missing context.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information because none exist. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional semantics are needed.

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 playback, using the specific verb 'stop' and resource 'playback'. The note about the response adds clarity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_clip' or 'stop_all_clips', which could confuse when to use this versus those.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'start_playback' or 'stop_clip'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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