shell_proxy_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, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to in-flight sessions or credentials, what errors occur if the proxy is not running, or permission requirements are all absent. 'Stop' signals a state change but no consequences.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the verb and resource are front-loaded. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it omits where proxyId comes from, what stopping does to the proxy's credentials/sessions, and what success or failure looks like. An agent can attempt the call but cannot predict its effects.

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 single parameter proxyId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only implies it identifies the running proxy without giving format, source (e.g., shell_proxy_list), or behavior for an invalid id. This leaves the parameter under-documented.

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 credential proxy), which lets an agent distinguish it from shell_proxy_start and shell_proxy_list. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'a running credential proxy' implies the proxy must be active, but there is no guidance on when to stop versus start/list, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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