stop_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action ('sends Ctrl+C') which suggests an interrupt signal, but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no process is running, if the action is reversible, or any error conditions. The disclosure is minimal for a potentially destructive operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Stop the currently running process') and adds clarifying detail ('in the exec window (sends Ctrl+C)'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the tool's behavior in edge cases, what it returns, and the parameter's purpose. For a tool that interacts with running processes, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't mention any parameters at all. Since there's only one optional parameter ('workspace_id'), the tool likely functions without it, so the description's omission isn't critical. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but here we have 1 undocumented parameter, so it's scored slightly lower.

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 target ('currently running process in the exec window'), with the specific mechanism 'sends Ctrl+C' providing additional clarity. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'destroy_workspace' or 'execute_command', but the scope is well-defined.

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 implies usage when a process is running, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'destroy_workspace' (which might terminate a workspace) or 'send_input' (which could send other signals). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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