Pod Stop Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that all containers are stopped, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the stop is graceful (SIGTERM then kill), what happens after the timeout expires, whether the pod is deleted or merely halted, or what state the caller should expect afterwards.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though for a state-mutating tool the brevity tips toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a lifecycle-mutating tool with no annotations and many similar siblings, the description omits the prerequisites, post-conditions, and sibling routing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: 'name' (Pod name or ID) and 'timeout' (seconds before killing, default 10) are both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Stop) and resource (pod), and adds scope detail that the name alone does not convey: it stops all containers in the pod, not just the pod object. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as pod_restart_tool, pod_rm_tool, or pod_start_tool, so an agent must still infer which lifecycle operation is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to stop versus restart, remove, or kill a pod, and no stated preconditions (e.g. pod must exist/running) or notes about reversibility. With four closely related pod lifecycle siblings, this absence is a real gap.

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