stop_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains graceful stop (SIGTERM, timeout, then SIGKILL) and the force option (immediate SIGKILL). It clearly signals that the tool terminates processes. While it could mention side effects or irreversibility, the signal-based behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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 concise: three sentences plus an Args list. It front-loads the main action. The Args list is redundant with the schema but not overly verbose. It could be slightly tighter by omitting the list, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers the stop mechanism and parameters adequately. However, it lacks mention of the return value's meaning (beyond 'status') and does not relate to sibling tools (e.g., hinting that stopped sessions may require start_launch again). The output schema likely fills some gaps, but the description could be more complete for an agent.

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% (all parameters described in schema), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters affect behavior: e.g., 'force: If True, use SIGKILL immediately' and how timeout is used in the graceful shutdown sequence. This extra context improves understanding beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Stop a launch session gracefully or forcefully.' It specifies the verb 'stop' and the resource 'launch session,' and explains the mechanism (SIGTERM then SIGKILL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_launch (which suspends) or restart_launch (which restarts).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like pause_launch or restart_launch. It explains how it works but omits context such as 'Use this to terminate a session completely; use pause_launch to temporarily suspend it.' Given multiple related tools, this absence of comparative guidance is a notable gap.

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