navvi_stop

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

Without annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Firefox profile is preserved in the Docker volume.' This indicates that stopping does not destroy data, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core action and key behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence adds information.

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 simple one-optional-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main action, default behavior, and a side effect. Some might want warnings about ongoing operations, but it's fairly complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to the 'persona' parameter by explaining that omitting it stops all containers. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Stop a Navvi container') and the resource ('container'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it stops all containers if no persona is specified, making the scope clear.

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?

It provides a clear usage hint: stop a specific container by persona, or all if no persona. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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