stop_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only asserts that a process is stopped. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent when nothing is running, whether it terminates the process forcibly or gracefully, whether any session state or data is lost, or what permissions are needed for a mutation-style action.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a lifecycle-mutating action, leaving room for a short usage clause without bloat.

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-value explanation is not required, and the zero-parameter schema is simple. However, with no annotations and a lifecycle-mutating operation, the description omits the prerequisite state and side effects an agent would need to invoke 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema confirms an empty argument object, matching the description's lack of parameter discussion.

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 states a specific verb ("Stops") and resource ("the running Streamlit dashboard process"), which is unambiguous on its own. It contrasts implicitly with create_dashboard, get_dashboard_status, and read_dashboard by naming the lifecycle action, but never explicitly says how it differs from its siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dashboard_status (which would tell you whether a dashboard is running) or create_dashboard. The phrase "the running" implies a precondition but does not state what happens if no dashboard is running or when to prefer this over a status check.

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