rba_ws_stop

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether connected clients are disconnected, whether the bridge can be restarted, or any persistent state changes). This lack of detail gives the agent limited insight into the operation's consequences.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text or irrelevant detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description is suitable for a zero-parameter stop action but omits any context about the bridge's lifecycle or how it relates to rba_ws_start. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent may not know what to expect after calling this tool.

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 is empty. According to the baseline, a description earns a 4 for parameter semantics when there are no parameters; no additional parameter information is needed.

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 identifies the resource 'local RBA websocket bridge,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like rba_ws_start and rba_ws_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, effects on other tools, or when it should be invoked. The implied usage from the name is the only clue.

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