stop_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Stop a running command' but does not disclose that this is a destructive/irreversible action, any side effects on child processes, or whether the stop is graceful or forceful. The source of the pid is left to the schema.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential action and identifiers, but misses important context: whether one identifier is mandatory, how to obtain the pid from run_command, and what the outcome/return value is. The absence of annotations increases the need for more contextual detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by pid (or command text)' adds little beyond restating the parameter names. It fails to clarify that 'or' implies at least one is required, and whether both can be supplied together.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running command... by pid or command text'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_crons or stop_subscriptions. The target is 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?

The description implies the tool is used to terminate running commands, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, how to obtain the pid, or that either pid or command text is required. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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