stop_screen_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Stop screen recording') and return type ('Success or error message'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., saves a file), or error conditions. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 very concise with two sentences: one stating the action and another describing the return. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and there's no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured by integrating the return info into the first sentence for better flow.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and return, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more context like prerequisites or effects to be fully helpful.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling this case without unnecessary information.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Stop screen recording'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_all_scripts' or 'stop_app', nor does it clarify what exactly gets stopped (e.g., a previously started recording). This makes it clear but somewhat vague in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a recording to be active), exclusions, or related tools like 'start_screen_recording'. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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