Parar servidor local

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return behavior (it lists servers still up), which partially substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it omits the disruptive/irreversible nature of stopping a server, permission requirements, or what happens to in-flight work.

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 scope qualifier compactly parenthesized. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter stop tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, and return list adequately. It still leaves the destructive/side-effect profile and prerequisites unstated, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the lone parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does: the parenthetical '(ou todos, sem "projeto")' explains the omission semantics of the optional parameter, which the schema does not. It stops short of clarifying the expected identifier format for 'projeto'.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it stops a project's server, and clarifies the scope variant (project-scoped or all). This pairs clearly with the sibling servir_site, though the description never names that counterpart explicitly.

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 tells the agent how to select scope operationally: pass a project to stop one server, or omit it to stop all. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., servir_site) is given, but the invocation context is unambiguous.

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