cf_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what stopping does to the app (state transition, process termination), whether it is reversible, whether restarts automatically occur, or whether routes/env are preserved. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is perhaps too terse for a state-changing tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool is simple (one required string, no output schema), so the description is close to adequate. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should at minimum state the resulting app state or any operational requirement, which it omits.

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% and the single appName parameter is already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning such as name format, org/space disambiguation, or whether partial names are allowed.

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 (Stop) and resource (running application), which clearly separates it from the sibling cf_start. However, it does not distinguish itself from other lifecycle siblings like cf_restart, cf_restage, or cf_delete_app, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The adjective 'running' implies a precondition (only running apps can be stopped), but nothing tells the agent when to prefer stop over restart, restage, or delete.

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