stm32_stop_gdb_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect—stopping all matching processes, not just one—which is critical for an agent to understand impact. It could mention that this affects every running server instance, but the word 'all' already conveys that.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains exactly the necessary information and nothing extraneous. It wastes no words.

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 process-stopping tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It identifies the exact processes affected and the action taken, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.

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 rubric baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is required, and the description's focus on the action is sufficient.

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 clear resource ('all running ST-LINK_gdbserver or OpenOCD processes'), making the action unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stm32_start_gdb_server and stm32_run_gdb_script.

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 'all running... processes' clearly signals when this tool is appropriate: when the user wants to terminate active GDB servers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is obvious.

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