dsh_runtime_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence of dropping bridged dsh__* tools, which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention reversibility, prerequisites, or the effect of calling when no runtime is active.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important side effect. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the main behavior. It could mention the return value or behavior when no runtime exists, but for a straightforward stop operation this is likely adequate.

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 defines zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params results in a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.

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 the spawned DSH runtime') and the direct effect ('drop bridged dsh__* tools'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like dsh_runtime_start and dsh_runtime_unload by indicating it stops and cleans up.

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 implies the use case: stopping a previously spawned runtime. The sibling tool names provide clear context, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternative tools. It gives enough contextual guidance without explicit exclusions.

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