stop_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, error states, prerequisites, or any side effects. For a stop operation, such details are important but absent.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It covers the essential information without fluff, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate note on conditions) without increasing length significantly. Still, for a simple tool, this is well-sized.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what happens if no monitor is running, whether the call is safe to repeat, or how to verify success. More completeness would reduce ambiguity.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional context is required beyond what is already clear from 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 verb 'Stop' and the resource 'persistent BetterDB monitor process', making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_monitor by referencing the specific startup method.

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 specifies that the tool should be used to stop a monitor started with start_monitor or with certain flags, giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative methods, which would improve guidance.

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