stopall_node

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'stop' without indicating whether it performs a graceful shutdown or forced halt, or any side effects like stopping running tasks. This lack of detail reduces transparency for safe tool invocation.

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 extremely concise, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains the parameters in a structured format (Args:). Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity of a bulk stop operation and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention important context like whether the operation is synchronous, if it waits for guests to stop, or how it handles errors. Output schema exists but does not substitute for behavioral context.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the node parameter as 'The node name' and vms as 'Comma-separated list of VMIDs to stop (empty = all)'. While helpful, it could be more precise (e.g., specifying ID format for vms or node naming requirements). It adds meaning beyond the schema but not fully detailed.

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 tool stops all VMs and containers on a node, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bulk_shutdown_guests by specifying node-level operation. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'VMs and containers' refers to QEMU VMs and LXC containers, which is inferable from context.

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 stopping all guests on a node, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_shutdown_guests or shutdown_vm. No explicit context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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