stop_aoc_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action ('stop') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, if confirmation is needed, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. The description is minimal.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose.

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's simplicity (stop a run, one parameter), the description provides the core purpose but lacks context about effects, return value (though output schema exists), and prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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 no descriptions for its single parameter 'run_id' (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, such as format, how to obtain it, or constraints. This is insufficient.

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 ('Stop') and the specific resource ('in-flight AutoCompany cognitive-loop run'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_aoc_run (retrieves run info) and list_aoc_runs (lists runs).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_aoc_run or validate_aoc_run_config. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., run must be in-flight) or when not to use it.

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