Stop the inbound receiver

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness and idempotency, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is a no-op under HTTP rather than failing, and it clarifies the relationship with the server's port. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Close the standalone inbound listener') followed by necessary context. Every clause adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It clarifies the key edge case (HTTP transport) and the tool's role relative to the server lifecycle, leaving no significant gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by explaining the transport-dependent behavior, which is more relevant than parameter documentation.

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 action: 'Close the standalone inbound listener.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like receiver_start by noting transport-specific behavior. The addition of the HTTP context clarifies scope.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is meaningful: 'Only meaningful on the stdio transport; under HTTP the receiver shares this server's port and stops with it.' It implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusionary guidance beyond the transport condition.

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