stop_hub_server

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

The description discloses behavioral traits: it terminates a Docker container and cleans up resources, and explains the fallback to ephemeral mode. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents the side effects adequately.

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: a one-line summary, followed by behavioral details, then parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 an output schema, the description covers the action, post-effect, parameter meaning, and return value. It is complete and provides all necessary information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides a parameter docstring that explains 'server_name' as 'Name of the hub server to stop', adding meaning beyond the schema (which only specifies type string).

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 action ('Stop a persistent container session for a hub server') and distinguishes from sibling tools like start_hub_server and hub_server_status. The verb 'stop' and resource 'persistent container session' are specific and 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 description provides context on when to use the tool (to stop a persistent container session) and explains the post-effect ('tool calls will fall back to ephemeral mode'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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