tunnel_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool stops a tunnel, but omits consequences (e.g., idempotency, prerequisite for a running tunnel, or any side effects like killing processes).

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, efficient sentence with no redundant information. However, its brevity sacrifices some necessary detail while remaining appropriately front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description lacks context about the target field, the nature of the tunnel, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema (not shown) doesn't excuse the missing input semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'the target', which repeats the parameter name without explaining its meaning, allowed values, or the significance of the default 'default'.

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 verb 'Stops' and the resource 'persistent reverse SSH tunnel for the target'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tunnel_start and tunnel_status by indicating it performs the opposite action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as only stopping a tunnel that was previously started, or what happens if no tunnel exists. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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