rolldev_stop_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't explain what 'Stop' entails (e.g., whether it gracefully shuts down services, destroys data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). This leaves significant gaps 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 zero waste, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 this is a mutation tool (stopping an environment) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'Stop' does, error conditions, or return values), making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_path' documented as 'Path to the project directory.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('a RollDev project environment'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'rolldev_stop_svc' which stops a service rather than a project environment, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rolldev_stop_svc' or 'rolldev_list_environments' for checking status. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the project must be running first, or any exclusions.

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