stop_dev_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a mutation tool, but it doesn't state whether stopping is reversible, what side effects occur (kills processes? preserves state?), or what the response signals. For a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single concise sentence, zero waste. It's efficiently phrased, though one or two clarifying clauses about side effects could be added without bloating it.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), but it's a state-changing operation. Given the sibling set includes detach_dev_server (which sounds similar in effect), the description doesn't fully disambiguate stopping from detaching. For a simple operation it's mostly adequate, but the ambiguity around consequences of 'stop' leaves it slightly incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric since there's nothing for the description to add meaning to. The description correctly makes no claim about parameters.

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 'Stop the running dev server' uses a clear verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_dev_server, but it's less specific than it could be - it doesn't clarify what happens to child processes, whether state is preserved, or what 'stop' entails beyond terminating.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like detach_dev_server and get_status, an agent might wonder whether detaching or checking status is more appropriate than stopping. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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