stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Stop,' implying a mutating action, but does not disclose whether stopping is irreversible, what happens to the run's output, permission requirements, or idempotency.

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 with no filler. Every part contributes: the action, the resource scope, and the accepted identifier forms.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the action and parameter semantics, so an agent can likely invoke it correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral consequences and does not mention how to obtain the id or name, despite the sibling list tool existing.

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 schema has one required string id with no description (0% coverage). The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that id can be a durable id or an unambiguous peer name, which is not derivable from the schema. It does not define the formats, but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and names the exact resource ('Muster-owned run'), plus the identifier forms accepted. It is clearly distinct from siblings run, list, and output.

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 implies this tool is for stopping an existing Muster-owned run and even states how to identify it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the agent to list for finding ids. Usage context is clear but alternatives are left implicit.

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