Stop Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the single most important trait: idempotency ('幂等：未运行时也正常返回' — returns normally even when not running). It does not say what happens to in-flight chats/requests or whether authentication is required, but the idempotency disclosure is genuine non-obvious behavior beyond structured fields.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the action and its effect come first, then the idempotency guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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 already defining the return shape, the description covers the essentials: what is stopped, what resource is freed, and the idempotent no-op case. Only a note on interruption of active sessions/requests is missing.

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. Nothing in the description misrepresents or invents parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('停止本地模型服务' / stop local model service) and adds the side effect of releasing VRAM, which makes the effect unambiguous. It does not explicitly name start_server or server_status as the contrasting siblings, but the name-plus-effect pairing makes the opposite of start_server obvious.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: stopping the service and freeing VRAM signals the context in which to call it (teardown / reclaim GPU memory). There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is referenced, so an agent must infer the trigger condition.

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