stop_tunnels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses only that all tunnels are stopped. It does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires privileges, what happens to existing connections, or whether it can be undone.

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 wasted words and the operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 a mutation-like tool with no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and an output schema, the description is still too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, safety behavior, and any usage context needed to invoke 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%, so the description must clarify the single 'alias' parameter. It implies a host is targeted, but never names or explains the alias format, expected values, or relationship to the host.

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 specific verb ('Ferma' / stop) and resource ('tunnel') with scope ('tutti' / all) and target ('di un host' / of a host). It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling stop_tunnel by specifying all tunnels, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_tunnel, kill_session, or list_tunnels. The description only restates the operation without context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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