session_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the destructive nature (deletes workspace) and the 'if any' qualifier for the REPL worker, which is good. It could mention irreversibility or error cases, but for a simple stop tool, this is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence with a colon separator. It front-loads the action and provides precise details without any 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its core side effects. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. It might miss edge cases like non-existent sessions, but for a lifecycle tool, the description is adequately complete.

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 schema has one parameter (session_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by linking the parameter to the session being stopped, implying that session_id identifies the session. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces its role.

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 identifies the resource ('a session') with concrete actions: killing the REPL worker and deleting the workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_start or session_run.

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 makes the usage context clear: you use this when you want to terminate a session and clean up its resources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and consistent with the sibling tool set.

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