Stop mock server

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint - it only stops a server that start_mock launched - but says nothing about failure behavior or whether in-flight requests are dropped.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the scope qualifier attached. Every word earns its place and there is no 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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema that carries return values, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does. A note on the no-server-running case would close the remaining gap, though idempotentHint partially covers it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema's empty properties object matches the parameterless contract implied by the description.

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 states a specific verb (stop) and resource (the mock server), and scopes it to the server created by start_mock, which cleanly separates it from that sibling. It is clear but deliberately terse, with no indication of what state or side effects the stop produces.

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 implied through the reference to start_mock: call this after starting a mock. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what happens when no mock is running or whether other operations must be done first.

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