tv_watchdog_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it stops the watchdog, but does not mention idempotency, what happens if the watchdog is not running, or any side effects. The addition of 'in-process' clarifies scope but not behavioral consequences.

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, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place by being maximally concise.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), but the description lacks information about return behavior or edge cases like calling stop when the watchdog is already stopped. While not necessary for trivial operations, the absence of any behavioral caveats leaves a small gap in completeness.

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 schema is fully coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 ('Stop') and clearly identifies the resource ('the in-process health watchdog'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like tv_watchdog_start and tv_watchdog_status.

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 wording implies usage as the counterpart to tv_watchdog_start, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The context provides some implicit guidance, but no explicit exclusion or preference.

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