停止遠端裝置 Agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that only the MCP agent process stops, not the computer, and that an SSH-launched on-demand agent may start again on the next connection.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and the restart caveat is useful without being verbose.

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-argument destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the scope and restart behavior, though it could mention whether confirmation is expected before invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately does not add parameter detail because none exists.

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: 'Stop ONLY this MCP agent process.' It immediately clarifies scope by saying it does not shut down the computer, which distinguishes it from any broader shutdown interpretation among the sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the command itself, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the scope clarification. No sibling alternatives are named, though none appear directly equivalent.

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