session_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive actions ('kill ... delete its workspace') and notes the conditional REPL worker, which is useful. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or side effects on running artifacts, leaving some transparency gaps for a 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every word contributes meaning. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior: stopping a session and its resource cleanup. It could add notes about permanence or prerequisite lookup, but the current scope is mostly sufficient for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the session_id parameter beyond what the schema already shows. Since the parameter is a single simple string, the gap is minor, but the description fails to add any semantic depth such as format expectations or where to obtain a valid session_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('session'), then clarifies scope by naming the two concrete effects: killing the REPL worker (if any) and deleting the workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_start, session_run, and session_list.

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 intent is obvious from the imperative 'Stop a session' and the sibling context. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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