Stop project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavior: 'return the final output summary'. However, it does not mention the 'all' option or any side effects of stopping (e.g., unsaved changes), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no redundant words 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 simple stop tool with two parameters, the description covers the core action and return value but misses the parameter-specific behavior (the 'what' choices). Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail about the 'all' option and process behavior would round it out.

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 only 50% (project has a description, what does not). The description fails to add meaning to the 'what' parameter, omitting the 'all' option entirely. It does not compensate for the gap left by the schema, making parameter understanding weaker.

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 resource ('running game or editor') with the scope 'started by this server', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_project. It also states the return value, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_project or get_output. The only hint is the phrase 'started by this server', which implies it is the counterpart to run_project but does not say so directly or mention any exclusions.

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