server_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Stop'. It does not clarify consequences such as terminating active sessions or clearing server state. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description relies entirely on structured metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and the target directly, and every word 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 destructive action with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It is slightly thin on operational context such as behavior when the server is already stopped, but that is not necessary for calling the tool correctly.

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 accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning beyond the empty 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 precise action ('Stop') and the exact target ('configured local open.mp test server'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools server_start and server_status, which have complementary purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus server_start or server_status. The description only states the action and target, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings rather than from explicit instructions.

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