stop_adapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses state-dependent outcomes, including no-op on STOPPED and InvalidStateError on DEAD/DELETED, and that it waits for STOPPED. However, it does not explicitly mention mutation or permission requirements, so slightly less than fully transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and uses clear bullet points for state-dependent behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains state transitions and error cases, but the behavior on timeout expiry is not described, leaving a minor gap for a tool with a timeout parameter.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for name and timeout. The description adds operational context (state behavior) but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 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 clearly states the action ('stop') and the resource ('adapter'), and its state-based behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_adapter and restart_adapter.

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 explicitly describes behavior for RUNNING, STOPPED, and DEAD/DELETED states, guiding when the tool is appropriate and when it will error. This effectively communicates usage context relative to alternatives.

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