stop_ollama

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly conveys that this is a destructive action ('Stop') and adds the important safety constraint that only the orchestrator-owned PID is affected. It could mention what happens if the process is already stopped or whether shutdown is graceful, but the core behavioral risk is well covered.

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?

A single tight sentence delivers the action, target, and ownership constraint with no wasted words. The most important qualifier is placed directly after the verb phrase, so an agent scanning quickly gets the essential meaning immediately.

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, the description is complete enough. It states what will be stopped and under what condition, and the owning-orchestrator clarification resolves the main ambiguity an agent could face when selecting this tool among siblings.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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'), a clear resource ('the Ollama process'), and an important scope qualifier ('this orchestrator started (owned pid only)'). This distinguishes the tool from monitoring siblings like ollama_status and start_ollama, and prevents confusion about what exactly gets stopped.

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 clearly states that this tool only applies to the orchestrator-owned Ollama process, giving an implicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundary. It does not name alternative tools, but no close alternative for stopping Ollama exists among the siblings, so the guidance is reasonably complete.

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