stop_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Ferma' implies cancellation of a running process (non-read-only, potentially destructive to the tunnel process), but the description doesn't say whether the tunnel is terminated, whether it can be restarted, what errors occur if the tunnel doesn't exist, or what auth is required. It only adds that termination is scoped to a local port.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of 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?

An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks usage context, parameter meanings, and the behavioral implications of stopping a tunnel. For a mutation-style operation with no annotations, more detail is needed to let an agent call it correctly.

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% and neither required parameter (alias, local_port) is explained in the description. The word 'porta' vaguely gestures at local_port, but alias is completely undocumented, and a 2-param tool with 0% coverage should get explanatory value from the description, which it doesn't.

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 says 'Ferma il tunnel su una porta' (Stop the tunnel on a port), which gives a verb (Ferma/Stop) and a resource (tunnel), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate clearly from siblings like stop_tunnels (plural). The Italian phrasing also doesn't match the English tool name style, which could confuse an agent about whether it's the same operation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains stop_tunnels, list_tunnels, start_tunnel, tunnel_health, and list_tunnels_all, but the description never mentions any of them or any conditions for selection.

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