htb_stop_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action 'stop'. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., container termination, data loss), required permissions, or whether the container can be restarted. The agent learns nothing beyond the basic operation.

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, well-formed sentence with no unnecessary words (13 words). It is maximally concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 this is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still lacks important context: it does not mention the lifecycle relationship to 'htb_start_container', what happens to the container after stopping, or any prerequisites. Ambiguity remains about whether this is for challenges, labs, or other HTB content.

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; the description does not explain the 'container_id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (type integer, required). No context about how to obtain the container_id or its format is given, providing zero added value over the schema.

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 resource (container) with a specific identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'htb_stop_machine' and 'htb_stop_challenge' by specifying 'container', though the phrase 'for HTB content that exposes one' is slightly vague but still conveys the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this should be used only for containers started with 'htb_start_container', nor does it exclude usage for challenges or machines. This minimal guidance forces the agent to infer context.

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