stop_nessus_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Stop' implies a mutation, but it never says whether the scan is aborted permanently or paused, whether partial results are retained, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a state-changing operation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness is a byproduct of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, but this is a state-changing tool with no annotations and one undocumented parameter. The description is too thin to let an agent call it correctly without guessing about prerequisites and side effects.

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?

There is a single required parameter, scan_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply the missing meaning. It adds nothing — no indication of where scan_id comes from (e.g., list_nessus_scans or get_nessus_scan_status) or what format/range is valid.

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 gives a specific verb (Stop) and resource (running Nessus scan), which is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes it from launch_nessus_scan in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the scan-lifecycle context, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'running' — the agent can infer this applies to an active scan, but there is no statement of when to use it versus get_nessus_scan_status, list_nessus_scans, or any prerequisite for obtaining a valid scan_id. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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