cocos_stop_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') which implies a destructive/mutative operation, but doesn't describe what happens when stopping fails (e.g., if no server is running on that port), whether it's idempotent, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency, or side effects. Given the tool's likely role in a preview workflow (with 'cocos_start_preview' as a sibling), more context about dependencies and typical usage would be needed for completeness.

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 description mentions 'on the given port' which aligns with the single 'port' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no documentation about the parameter. The description adds minimal context but doesn't explain the port's purpose, valid ranges, or default behavior (though the schema shows a default of 8080). This partially compensates but remains basic.

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 target resource ('preview HTTP server on the given port'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cocos_start_preview' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify their complementary relationship.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'cocos_start_preview' is clearly the complementary sibling, the description doesn't mention it or explain prerequisites (e.g., that a preview server must be running). There's no context about error conditions or typical workflows.

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