slm_policy_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stop') but doesn't describe what stopping entails (e.g., does it pause future snapshots, cancel in-progress ones, or affect existing snapshots?), potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. There's no wasted text, but it could be more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info into the main sentence. The two-line format is efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and how it interacts with other SLM tools. Given the complexity of stopping a lifecycle policy, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 explicitly lists the parameter 'name' and indicates it's the '策略名称' (policy name), adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap. With one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the information is minimal.

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 ('停止' meaning 'stop') and the resource ('快照生命周期策略' meaning 'snapshot lifecycle policy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'slm_policy_start' beyond the obvious stop vs. start distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the policy must be running), consequences, or when to choose this over other SLM-related tools like 'slm_policy_delete' or 'slm_policy_explain'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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