clo_stop_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effect (frees the Python editor) and explicitly states what does not happen ('CLO keeps running'), which is helpful. It does not mention idempotency or behavior when no bridge is active, but these are minor for such a tool.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key side effect in a parenthetical. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, simple stop tool, the description provides complete context: what it stops, what it frees, and what remains running. The presence of an output schema (even if not detailed) further reduces the need for description to explain return values.

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, and the schema reflects that with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to document beyond the schema.

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 action ('Stop the bridge loop'), identifies the target resource (CLO), and clarifies the effect (frees the Python editor). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clo_run_python or clo_launch, which start or run processes, by focusing on stopping.

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 clearly implies the tool is for stopping an active bridge loop, and it notes that CLO keeps running, which sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for a zero-parameter stop action.

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