server_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Stop the running transform server' conveys only the action itself, with no info about side effects (e.g., whether running transforms are interrupted, if shutdown is graceful or forced, or if the operation is reversible). This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, maximizing information density.

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 (no params, likely void output), so minimal description might suffice. However, given no annotations, the description omits critical behavioral context—what happens to ongoing work, whether the server must be running, and error conditions. It is adequate but leaves gaps, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist. Since 0 params has a baseline of 4 per rubric, this score is appropriate.

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 a clear resource 'the running transform server', making it obvious what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_start, server_restart, and server_status by naming a distinct action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (server must be running), complementary tools (server_start), or scenarios where stop vs. restart or stop vs. status is appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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