stop_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses that the stop is journaled, human-initiated, and non-destructive since the session stays resumable. It omits possible error states or idempotency, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 dense sentence with no filler. Key qualifiers ('journaled', 'human-initiated', 'stays resumable') are packed in without redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter stop operation, the key behavioral promise is present, but there is no output or error information and no parameter clarification. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for the agent to guess details about name resolution and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain 'name' or 'reason' beyond their schema titles. An agent must infer that 'name' identifies the session and 'reason' is an optional journaled explanation.

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?

States the specific action ('Stop the run'), identifies the target resource ('session'), and adds precise scoping: journaled, human-initiated, and resumable. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_session and step_session.

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?

Provides clear context: use for a deliberate human-initiated stop where the session must remain resumable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the intended usage is inferable and distinct from run/step semantics.

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