hs4.admin.system.shutdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'controlled system shutdown' but does not explain what 'controlled' entails (e.g., grace period, dry-run capability, confirmation requirement). The schema indicates parameters like dryRun, confirm, and graceSeconds, but these behaviors are not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent unaware of safety mechanisms.

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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but too brief for a complex operation. It could be improved by adding more details without becoming verbose.

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's complexity (10 parameters, destructive action, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, safety precautions, or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides. The tool is a critical admin operation and needs more contextual information to be fully useful.

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 90% (9 out of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no additional value is added.

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 ('Issue a controlled system shutdown') and the resource ('system through admin controls'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include other admin system operations like backup, restore, and service restart, so this tool is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a dry-run first, or when not to use it (e.g., if a service restart is more appropriate). The sibling tools list includes other system operations, but no differentiation is provided.

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