stop_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. 'Stop a single node' adds no behavioral information beyond the tool's name; it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or the meaning of the 'wait' parameter, making this a near-tautology.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It provides no more information than the tool name itself, and its brevity comes at the cost of all substantive guidance. It is not a well-structured explanation of the tool's behavior or usage.

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 is woefully incomplete given its complexity: it has 3 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and a description that merely repeats the tool name. While an output schema exists, it does not explain when to use the tool, what the 'wait' parameter controls, or what consequences stopping a node has on the lab topology. An agent would have to guess or make assumptions.

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 has zero descriptions for parameters, and the tool description does not compensate. 'Stop a single node' gives no meaning to 'lab_id', 'node_id', or especially 'wait', which is non-obvious. An agent would not know whether 'wait' means waiting for the stop to complete or something else.

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 (a single node), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like stop_lab (which stops an entire lab) and start_node (which starts instead of stops). However, it lacks any additional context about what 'stopping' entails, such as whether it is a graceful shutdown or an immediate termination.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, the description does not explain that stop_node should be used for stopping individual nodes while stop_lab is for stopping entire labs, nor does it mention any preconditions like the lab needing to be running.

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