Stop Station

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Stop a running station' without mentioning what happens if the station isn't running, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects it might have on programs/schedules. This is a notable gap for a state-changing operation.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable and easy to parse.

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 one simple parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, given no annotations and sibling tools like stop_all_stations, the description could provide more context about exact scope and behavior. Its brevity leaves some operational ambiguity.

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 schema already documents station_id with a clear description ('Station ID (0-based index)') and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline without needing to compensate for missing schema information.

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 uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('station'), and the qualifier 'running' helps distinguish it from stopping all stations or starting one. It is not a tautology and clearly identifies the tool's core action at the intended scope.

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 phrase 'a running station' implies this is for stopping one active station, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus stop_all_stations or run_station. Usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving some interpretation to the agent.

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