ipython_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses the destructive consequences—kernel killed, name freed, namespace lost—and gives a reliability guarantee. It does not detail response behavior or permissions, but the irreversible effect is explicit.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key escape-hatch behavior and the critical consequence, with every clause earning 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 destructive stop tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it does, and the key side effect. Minor gaps remain around timeout edge cases and postconditions, but nothing prevents correct invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents name and timeout_ms. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise action chain: stop a session, kill its kernel, and free the name. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lifecycle tools (start/status/run/complete) and identifies a specific resource being acted on.

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?

It gives explicit context for use: it is the escape hatch for a wedged session and works even while a cell is executing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended scenario is clear.

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