stop_stack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the non-destructive nature ('without removing them') and the resumability, which are key behavioral traits. It omits edge cases like handling non-existent stacks, but core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter documentation in a clean list. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 simple one-parameter operation, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it preserves, and the parameter's meaning. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema in the example, this is acceptable.

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 description includes an Args section defining project_name as 'unique name for this stack, used to group/manage its containers,' which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal type/title. This adequately explains the parameter's role, though it could mention how to discover it.

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 tool stops all containers in a compose stack without removing them, and explicitly notes it can be started again later. This distinguishes it from stop_container and remove_stack, providing a precise purpose.

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 phrase 'without removing them, so it can be started again later' implicitly guides when to use this tool versus a removal tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like stop_container or remove_stack, leaving some inference to the agent.

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