stop_quire_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the action and the idempotent edge case ('if any'), which is valuable. It does not detail termination semantics or side effects, but for a zero-parameter stop command that is a minor gap.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to specifying the action, the target resource, and the conditional behavior.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema command, the description is nearly complete: it states what happens and the no-process case. It could mention return behavior or effects on the underlying process, but those are low-value details for this simple tool.

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 the schema is effectively exhaustive. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Stops') and a specific resource ('the currently running quire preview process'), which clearly states the tool's purpose. The 'if any' qualifier adds scope, and the action is clearly distinct from sibling tools like preview_quire_project or build_quire_project.

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 'currently running ... if any' gives a clear precondition: invoke this only when a quire preview process exists, and it is safe to call even if none is running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it is slightly below full routing guidance.

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