Unit Stop Tool

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral guardrail: refusal for units on the protected list. However, with no annotations, it does not cover side effects such as process termination, whether the unit can be restarted afterward, permission requirements, or failure semantics. It is partially transparent but not complete.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the protected-list caveat is placed clearly in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the action and a key restriction. It lacks usage context and behavioral details, but the low complexity means an agent can likely call it correctly with the schema.

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%, and the single parameter is described as 'Systemd unit name.' The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Stop a unit.' This clearly distinguishes it from obvious siblings like unit_start_tool and unit_restart_tool by the action verb. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer stop over restart, reload, or mask, and does not mention prerequisites or consequences. The protected-list refusal is a constraint, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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