stop_napcat_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a safe stop that precisely targets napcat_runtime processes and explicitly does NOT affect other Node services. That scoping constraint is genuinely useful. It omits what happens if the service is not running and the response shape, so not a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the safety scope parenthetically attached. No wasted text.

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 zero-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and its blast radius adequately. Only minor gaps remain (idempotency when nothing is running, success/failure signaling).

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation.

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+resource ('安全停止...NapCat 沙箱进程') with a clear scope qualifier. The verb 'stop' naturally distinguishes it from the sibling start_napcat_service and restart_napcat_service without needing to name them.

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 action (stop the running service) but there is no explicit guidance on when to stop versus restart_napcat_service, nor any preconditions (e.g. only callable when the service is running). Minimum-viable implied usage.

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