ddev_stop

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

With no annotations, the description competently discloses key behaviors: 'Non-destructive: leaves database and code intact' and 'Stop and remove the containers.' It also notes the need to run from a project directory or provide a project name, which is a practical behavioral requirement. The existence of destructive flags is hinted by referencing help output.

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 well-structured: one sentence for the core action and safety, one for usage, and one pointing to help for advanced options. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple stop command with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, safety implications, how to invoke it, and where to find more options. It does not describe return values, but that is not expected for this type of command and no output schema is provided.

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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter projectPath. The description adds contextual usage ('Run from project dir or pass project name(s)') and shows the CLI equivalent, but it may create slight ambiguity by implying project names are acceptable while the schema only mentions a path. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 remove the containers of a DDEV project.' This gives a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools like ddev_start and ddev_restart. The clarification that it is 'Non-destructive' further defines its scope.

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 clear context: 'Run from project dir or pass project name(s).' It also directs users to 'ddev help stop' for additional flags like --remove-data and --snapshot. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like ddev_poweroff or how it differs from them.

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