system_stop_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states side effects: 'It stops background jobs and container-side processes,' and the constraint that containers cannot run until a new session starts. It also reassures about workspace file preservation. This is transparent about the destructive nature and post-conditions.

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, using just three clearly labeled sentences: Purpose, Constraints, and Example. Each sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. The structure front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with critical constraints, making it easy to scan.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what side effects occur, and an example invocation. It effectively explains the post-conditions and session impact, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input space (empty object). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Stop and remove the current Hercules container while preserving workspace files.' It identifies the specific resource (Hercules container) and the two distinct actions (stop and remove), while also adding a key nuance (preserving workspace files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_start_new_session and shell_exec.

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 context about consequences ('MCP tools that require the container cannot run until a new session is started') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or name alternative tools. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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