Stop the runtime

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core side effect—every running script is stopped—but it does not say whether the VM execution state is reset, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to the project afterward.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and location with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter stop command, the description covers the essentials: what is stopped and where. It is slightly incomplete only because it does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools like stop_project or describe the resulting VM state, but this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 covers the input surface; the description does not need to explain any parameters. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and nothing is missing here.

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 states a clear verb ('Stop'), the scope ('every running script'), and the resource ('the headless VM'), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. This is more specific than the title and distinguishes it from project-level controls like stop_project.

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 intended use is implied: choose this tool when all scripts in the headless VM need to be halted. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling (e.g., stop_project) would be more appropriate for a different stopping scenario.

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