arc_stop_console_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool stops capture and clears logs, which is transparent about the destructive action. However, it does not clarify side effects like whether logs are permanently lost or if the tool fails when no capture is active.

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 a single sentence front-loading the key action and effect. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but lacks usage context and behavioral caveats. It would benefit from indicating prerequisites or typical workflow (e.g., paired with arc_start_console_capture).

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 coverage is 100% as the single parameter has a descriptive label in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'tab_index (optional)'. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Stop console capture and clear logs' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling arc_start_console_capture and implies a complementary role. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like arc_get_console_logs or arc_clear_storage, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when capture should be stopped or under what conditions logs are cleared. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need an active capture) or provide context for appropriate use.

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