tracking_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a decent job: it discloses the mechanism (SIGTERM), the conditional trigger (only if the session has a `pid`), and the resulting state change ('paused', still visible in the dashboard). It omits permissions/auth requirements and whether the session can later be resumed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and uses a compact Args block for the two parameters. No filler sentences, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core mutation behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the missing sibling differentiation (tracking_kill) and lack of any permission/reversibility note leave a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it partially does, documenting both parameters ('ID de la session' and 'Raison de l'arret (optionnel)'). The added meaning is thin — it largely restates parameter names without format, constraints, or effect on behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with concrete mechanics: sends SIGTERM to the process and marks the session 'paused'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tracking_kill, so an agent cannot tell the two stop-like tools apart without further inference.

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 label 'Arret propre' (clean stop) implicitly hints at a contrast with a forced stop, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names tracking_kill or tracking_complete as alternatives. The choice between these siblings is left entirely to inference.

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