nt_strategy_stop

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a limitation ('Local mode only') and implies a state change, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on open positions), error handling, or irreversibility. This is a moderate disclosure for a destructive action.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives essential usage and constraint 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a key constraint. However, it omits what happens on success/failure (e.g., feedback response), but given the simplicity, this is a minor 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?

The schema already describes the parameter ('Strategy class name'), but the description adds critical context on how to obtain the exact value: 'Use nt_strategies_running first to get exact names.' This goes beyond the schema, improving parameter understanding.

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 the action ('Stop') and the resource ('a running NinjaScript strategy') with specific method ('by class name'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only stop-related tool among the listed tools.

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 provides a clear usage prerequisite: 'Use nt_strategies_running first to get exact names.' It also notes a constraint ('Local mode only'), which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is actionable.

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