stop_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it kills the process, what happens if no server is running, or if it waits for shutdown). This is a significant gap 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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information provided and is front-loaded with the action.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter with no schema description and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, potential error conditions, and any information about the expected outcome beyond the basic action.

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 single parameter 'name' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explicitly explain what 'name' refers to. It implies 'name' is the presentation name via 'of a presentation,' but this is not directly stated, leaving ambiguity about the exact value to pass.

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 the resource (the running Slidev dev server of a presentation). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like start_server by indicating the opposite action.

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 phrase 'running Slidev dev server' implies it should be used when a server is active, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_server or server_status. No clear context or exclusions are provided.

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