rojo_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important safety constraint — it will only stop a server this process started — but says nothing about behavior when no server exists on the port, whether the stop is graceful, or whether other clients are affected.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and the scoping constraint front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward but adds a real constraint rather than noise.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a lifecycle-terminating tool with no annotations, the description omits error/no-op behavior and the default-port relationship, leaving modest gaps.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the key meaning: the port identifies which started server to stop. It does not mention the default value 34872 or whether the port must match the one passed to rojo_start, but the core semantics are covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the Rojo server') and ties it to the port the server was started on, which distinguishes it from rojo_start and rojo_status. It does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like studio_import, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping clause 'rojo_start started on this port', and the parenthetical '(never one it didn't start)' gives one useful exclusion. There is no explicit guidance on what to do if no server is running or how this relates to rojo_status as a check-first step.

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