stop_api_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Stop the running API server' and does not disclose consequences such as whether data is lost, whether the action is reversible, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if no server is running. This is a meaningful gap for an imperative lifecycle action.

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, complete sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The tool is simple and has no parameters, but the description is still minimal. It omits what happens on success or failure, whether a running server is required, and how this relates to start_api_server or get_api_endpoints. For a lifecycle operation, these gaps prevent the description from being fully complete, though the basic action is clear.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter syntax. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adequately aligns with the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a clear resource ('the running API server'), so an agent understands the action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'start_api_server', but the inverse relationship is self-evident from the names and description.

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 use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., server must be running) or exclusions, and no reference to the obvious sibling 'start_api_server'. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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