stop_napcat_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only processes under napcat_runtime are terminated and other Node services are untouched, which is real safety context. However, it does not say whether the stop is graceful or forced, whether it is reversible, or what happens if nothing is running.

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 well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and the safety scoping in a tight parenthetical. 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 parameterless lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope guarantee but omits state/error behavior (e.g. outcome when the service is already stopped, confirmation of termination). Adequate but with clear 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 (停止/stop) and resource (NapCat 沙箱进程), and the parenthetical scope note separates it from generic process tools. It does not explicitly name the start/restart siblings it pairs with, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies the tool is for shutting down the running NapCat sandbox, but never states when to use it versus restart_napcat_service or start_napcat_service, nor any precondition such as the service actually being up.

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