stop_mining

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether stopping is idempotent, what happens if no mining is in progress, whether it's a graceful or hard stop, or whether state is lost. 'Stop' implies mutation but nothing is disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it is arguably underspecified rather than truly concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no params. However, for a state-mutating control tool with no annotations, the description omits conditions, idempotency, and relationship to start_mining/cancel_command, leaving a meaningful completeness 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to add meaning to, and the description correctly does not invent parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Stop the mining process.' An agent can understand what it does without opening a schema. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'cancel_command' or distinguish itself relative to 'start_mining' beyond the obvious stop/start pairing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as cancel_command, nor state conditions (e.g., only valid if mining is active). The pairing with start_mining is implied by name only.

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