raxol_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core side effect (stops session, frees resources) but does not mention idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if session already stopped), permissions, or whether the action is reversible. The mutation nature is clear, but additional context is missing.

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 that is direct and front-loaded with the verb 'Stops'. It contains no redundant or filler wording.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and core side effect. However, it omits behavioral details like idempotency and error handling, which would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% since the only parameter 'id' has a description ('Session identifier'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'stops' and clearly identifies the resource ('running headless Raxol session') plus the side effect ('frees its resources'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like raxol_start and raxol_list.

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 usage for terminating a session but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, when not to use, or prerequisites. The word 'running' suggests it only applies to active sessions but this is not made explicit.

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