stop_pump

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key side effect: live-project commands break after removal and require the user to reinstall. It stops short of covering permissions, error behavior when no pump is running, or whether the tool itself can restore the pump.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded and the consequence follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a destructive operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers the action and its main consequence; the only gap is the pump/dispatcher terminology mismatch and the lack of any link to get_pump_status.

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 parameter-related for the description to compensate for.

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 and resource: 'Remove the main-thread dispatcher.' However, the name is stop_pump and the description never uses the word 'pump', so an agent must infer that the 'main-thread dispatcher' is the pump. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_pump_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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The warning that 'live-project commands stop working until the user installs it again' implicitly tells the agent to use this only when disruption is acceptable, which is useful but indirect.

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