Sb3 Vm Stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'proxied' and 'headless', but does not state side effects on VM state, whether variables are reset, whether threads are terminated, or whether the operation is destructive. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful 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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that clearly states the operation and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter command with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the action and resource. However, it lacks usage context for when to invoke this versus related VM tools, and it does not explain the practical effect on a running project or VM lifecycle, which an agent would need for reliable selection.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter meaning that the description must add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool; there is nothing to compensate for.

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 states a specific verb ('stop') and a clear resource ('all scripts in the headless VM'), and adds the scope qualifier 'all scripts'. This distinguishes it from related tools like sb3_stop_project or sb3_vm_run without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_stop_project, sb3_vm_green_flag, or sb3_vm_run_until. The description implies a stop action but does not clarify whether it is a hard stop, whether it is reversible, or what distinguishes it from other stop/reset tools.

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