stop_bridge

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions stopping SSH and optionally terminating the process, referencing parameters, but does not explain parameter interactions or consequences (e.g., what happens if stop_ssh is false or kill_process is false). Lack of clarity on destructive nature.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by separating parameter explanations, but it remains efficient and front-loads the primary action.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and side effects, leaving the agent without enough context to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only hints at parameter roles via 'optionally terminate the bridge process', failing to explicitly explain what 'stop_ssh' and 'kill_process' control individually. This leaves ambiguity for an agent.

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 stops the SSH session and optionally terminates the bridge process, referencing the sibling 'start_bridge' for context. The verb 'stop' and resource (SSH session/bridge process) are specific, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 after starting a bridge with start_bridge, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., bridge_status for checking state, cancel_upload for other cancellations). The guidance is minimal.

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