pod_stop_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that all containers are stopped, but it does not disclose whether the stop is graceful or force-kills after a timeout, or what happens to the pod state. The schema's timeout description ('Seconds to wait before killing') is relevant but not part of the tool description, so this important nuance is missing.

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 is front-loaded and free of any extraneous words. Every word earns its place by conveying the action, the target, and the scope.

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 operation with an output schema present, the description conveys the core function. However, given the lack of annotations, it does not fully cover behavioral context such as timeout/kill behavior or usage guidance, leaving some informational gaps. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (name and timeout), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Stop' and the resource 'pod', and explicitly scopes it to 'all its containers', which distinguishes it from the sibling container_stop_tool. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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 usage for stopping an entire pod and its containers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like container_stop_tool. The scope mention 'all its containers' provides some implicit differentiation, so it's above no guidance but below explicit usage instructions.

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