live_stop_bridge

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 clearly states that the bridge is stopped and that GIMP remains open, which are the two key behavioral consequences. It does not mention edge cases like stopping an already-stopped bridge, but for a zero-parameter control action this is adequate.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds the important clarifying detail about GIMP remaining open. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with a simple, well-defined action, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what happens and what does not happen. The output schema is present, so return-value details are not required in the description.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly includes no parameter-specific details because none are needed. There is no schema information to supplement or contradict.

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 and resource: 'Stop the bridge inside the running GIMP'. It also explicitly clarifies that GIMP itself remains open, which disambiguates this from closing GIMP. This is a clear, distinct purpose among the sibling tools.

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 clearly states the context: the bridge is running inside GIMP, and the tool stops only the bridge. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool appears to perform a similar stop action, so the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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