rolldev_stop_svc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop' implies a potentially destructive action, the description doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to running services, whether the action is reversible, or what side effects might occur.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's core function.

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 potentially destructive service management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'system services' means, what happens when they're stopped, whether there are dependencies, or what the expected outcome looks like.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single 'project_path' parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 target ('RollDev system services'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rolldev_stop_project' or 'rolldev_start_svc', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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_project' or 'rolldev_start_svc'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or what constitutes appropriate usage context.

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