lira_stop_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the stop is immediate or graceful, whether partial results are retained or discarded, whether the call blocks until termination, or what error occurs if no analysis is running.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It could carry one more clause of behavioral detail without becoming bloated.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and the zero-parameter surface keeps things simple. However, for a control operation on a long-running process, the absence of any note about state after stopping or interaction with lira_analysis_status leaves a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

States a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('the running analysis'), which is enough to distinguish it from lira_run_analysis and lira_analysis_status. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the semantics are unambiguous.

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 'the running analysis' implies it applies only while an analysis is in progress, but the description never states when to call it versus checking lira_analysis_status first, nor what to do if nothing is running.

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