stop_llamacpp

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals a safety constraint: it only acts on owned pids, not arbitrary llama-server processes. However, it does not disclose whether the stop is graceful, what happens if no owned process is running, or whether the call waits for termination.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds value: the action, the target process, and the ownership restriction. There is no wasted or redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is nearly complete. It names the target and the key behavioral boundary. It could add a note about idempotency or behavior when no owned process exists, but the low complexity makes the description adequate.

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 parameter documentation is not needed. The description correctly identifies the implicit target (the orchestrator-owned llama-server process), which is sufficient given the empty input schema.

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', names the exact resource ('llama-server process'), and adds the scope qualifier 'this orchestrator started (owned pid only)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling stop tools like stop_vllm and stop_ollama without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'this orchestrator started (owned pid only)' provides an explicit usage boundary: only stop llama-server processes owned by this orchestrator. It implies the tool should not be used for external or unrelated processes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as stop_vllm for other engines.

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