htb_stop_challenge

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Stop' without explaining consequences (e.g., termination of container, state changes, idempotency, or permissions required). A destructive action like stopping should clarify if it is reversible or what happens to running 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler. For a simple tool, this strikes an optimal balance between brevity and clarity.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It communicates the basic purpose but lacks contextual details like expected side effects, return values, or error conditions. A score of 3 reflects that it meets the essential need but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not explain the 'challenge_id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type integer, title 'Challenge Id'). The description fails to add useful context, such as how to obtain the ID or constraints (e.g., must be an active challenge).

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 the resource ('a challenge container by challenge id'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like htb_stop_container (for containers) and htb_stop_machine (for machines) by focusing on 'challenge' containers.

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 (e.g., htb_stop_container or htb_stop_machine). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the container must be running, or when not to use it (e.g., if the challenge is already stopped). The description lacks context for proper decision-making.

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