stop_lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the obvious action ('stop every node') and does not disclose side effects, reversibility, requirements, or the effect of the 'wait' parameter. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap—users are left unaware of what happens to running processes, lab state, or whether the action is destructive.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, but for a simple 2-parameter tool, the brevity is acceptable from a conciseness standpoint.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema), and the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the 'wait' parameter, any behavioral nuances, or usage context. While the output schema exists and may cover return values, the description does not address operational semantics. The lack of annotations makes this gap more severe.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('lab_id' or 'wait'). It adds zero meaning beyond the raw schema definitions. The 'wait' boolean with a default is completely unexplained, and there is no guidance on how to specify the lab. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 'Stop every node in a lab' clearly specifies the action (stop) and the resource scope (all nodes in a lab). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stop_node' (stops a single node) and 'start_lab' (starts all nodes), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'remove_node' or 'wipe_lab'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., lab must exist), nor does it note any situations where a different tool would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is 'stopping all nodes in a lab,' but there is no explicit comparison or context.

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