stop_process

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that the process's child tree is also stopped, which is an important destructive side effect. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds useful context without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and scope of effect.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering read/write/destructive behavior, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what is stopped and how the target is identified, though it does not cover edge cases such as behavior for already-exited processes.

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 100%: the only parameter (pid) is already documented as an integer process ID returned by start_process. The description merely states stopping occurs 'by PID', adding no meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Stop'), a specific resource ('managed background process'), and a precise scope ('and its child tree by PID'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_processes and process_status by indicating the action of termination, not inspection.

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 'managed background process' and the schema's note that the PID is returned by start_process imply when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose. It could be clearer about distinguishing this from shell_command or other termination approaches.

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