stop_gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only mentions the action and return type, but omits important side effects like disconnection of clients, reversibility, or whether the gateway must be running. This leaves the tool's behavior largely opaque for a mutation-like operation.

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 two short sentences, directly stating the action and the return value. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and return. However, it does not mention prerequisites or the impact on running sessions, which would improve completeness slightly.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed given the absence of 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 states the specific action 'Stop the Docker MCP Gateway', which is a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like start_gateway and gateway_status, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Stop'. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent can infer the intended use from the name and sibling context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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