stop_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the stop is graceful or forceful, if it affects other tools, or if it requires elevated permissions. The mention of 'through tools/stop-server.sh' is an implementation detail but not a behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, more context could be added without making it verbose.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after stopping, whether the server restarts automatically, or any side effects on other tools or the system.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 (stops) and the resource (dedicated server) with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like start_server.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that it should be used after start_server or not used during critical operations.

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