server_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so by explaining the graceful shutdown via RCON and the SIGTERM fallback if RCON is unreachable. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of describing potential side effects like unsaved data loss or shutdown timing.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the key behavioral details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the stopping mechanism, the graceful fallback, and implicitly when it would be used. Given the low complexity, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter ('graceful') with a clear description and default value, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline of 3 for parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop') and the target ('the Minecraft server'), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_start, server_restart, and server_status by explicitly naming the stop operation.

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 usage (for stopping the server) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as server_restart or server_status. It offers no exclusions or alternative guidance, relying on the tool's name and clear purpose to infer when it should be called.

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