ct_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write operation, return type (UPID), and auto-location behavior. It could mention error handling or post-stop state, but the provided details are adequate for basic usage.

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 concise, with a clear header, body, and args list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with main action and return value.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main action, return type, parameter semantics, and inverse. It could include error cases or performance notes, but is largely sufficient for a stop 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning for all 4 parameters: vmid (numeric, see ct_list), dry_run (preview), target (config name), node (auto-locate). This explains purpose beyond the schema's type/default info.

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 an LXC container and returns a task UPID. It specifies the inverse operation ct_start, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ct_start and vm_stop. The verb 'stop' and resource 'LXC container' are precise.

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 guidance on when to use dry_run for preview, mentions the inverse ct_start, and explains the node parameter can be omitted for auto-location. However, it does not explicitly compare to other stop tools (e.g., vm_stop) or state when not to use it.

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