stop_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop' implies a potentially destructive action, it doesn't clarify whether this terminates processes abruptly, saves state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimal and misses important behavioral context for a tool that likely changes system state.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the key information immediately.

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 tool's apparent complexity (stopping a running project likely involves system changes) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral implications, success criteria, or error conditions that would help an agent use it 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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the tool's action rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.

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 specific action ('Stop') and target resource ('the currently running Godot project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_project' or 'launch_editor'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context ('currently running') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disconnect_remote_debugger' or 'get_project_info'. It provides basic situational awareness but lacks explicit guidance about prerequisites or exclusions.

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