Parar o PJe-Calc

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the orderly Tomcat shutdown when MCP-started (with the H2 database closing correctly) versus killing the java process like the launcher would. It could go further by warning about data-loss risk in the non-MCP/forced path.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the action comes first, then the two conditional branches in a single sentence. Every clause carries information, though the nesting of conditions makes it slightly heavier than necessary for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple stop tool with one optional flag, no output schema, and destructive/idempotent annotations already present, the description covers the important runtime behavior in both branches. Only the return/error behavior when nothing is running is left implicit, which is acceptable given idempotentHint=true.

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% and the single optional 'forcar' flag is documented in the schema itself ('Encerra o processo java diretamente'). The description does not mention the flag or explain how an explicit force interacts with the two shutdown paths it describes, so it adds nothing over the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Encerra o PJe-Calc') and is unambiguously the opposite pole of the sibling pjecalc_iniciar, so an agent can route between start/stop/status without opening any schema.

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 explains what happens in each shutdown path but never says when the agent should call this versus alternatives such as pjecalc_status (to check whether PJe-Calc is even running) or whether calling it when already stopped is a no-op. No when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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