stop_late_infer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a non-obvious limitation: only owned PIDs are stopped, and externally started late-infer processes are left running. It does not mention side effects or idempotency, but the ownership caveat is the most important behavioral trait for this tool.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the main action and scope. The phrase 'a late-infer Late started' is awkward and somewhat confusing, which prevents a perfect score.

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 parameterless stop tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential operational context: what is stopped, which processes qualify, and which are explicitly not touched. It lacks detail on return behavior or error cases, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 and the schema has no properties, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details needed, and the description does not attempt to invent any.

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 states a specific action ('Stop') and resource ('the late-infer process this orchestrator started'), with an explicit scope restriction ('owned pid only'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like start_late_infer and delete_late_infer.

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 ownership condition implies when it should be used: only for late-infer processes started by this orchestrator. It explicitly says it does not kill a late-infer process started elsewhere, providing a meaningful exclusion even though sibling alternatives are not named by tool name.

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