native-profiler-stop

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 transparently describes the platform-specific behaviors (iOS vs Android), signals, polling, and pull operations. It discloses the failure condition (no active session). However, it does not describe side effects like whether profiling is terminated or any cleanup, but given the nature of stop, this is acceptable. It adds context beyond the simple stop action.

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 reasonably concise, with three sentences covering purpose, method, and usage. It front-loads the action. It includes platform details and return value info, but the length is moderate. It is structured well; the platform breakdown is clear. Slight improvement would be trimming redundant details, but it's acceptable.

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's complexity (platform-specific stops), the description covers key behaviors: signals, packaging, polling, exporting, return fields, and failure. It lacks an output schema, so it properly explains the return value. It's complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool, especially with the precondition 'Call native-profiler-start first.'

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% with a detailed description for device_id. The description reiterates the parameter's origin ('from list-devices') and platform-specific formats, which slightly adds value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain any additional parameter aspects, but with one parameter well-covered, this is sufficient.

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's purpose: stop native profiling and export trace data. It distinguishes from siblings like native-profiler-start and native-profiler-analyze by specifying the stop/export action. It is not just a verb+resource, but it does not explicitly mention that it is the inverse of start, though it says 'Call native-profiler-start first.'

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 concrete usage context: 'Call native-profiler-start first' sets a precondition, and 'Use when the user has finished the interaction to profile and you need to export the trace' gives a clear scenario. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the 'call start first' is strong guidance.

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