Stop local Micro development

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'gracefully' implies a clean shutdown rather than a forced kill, and 'managed local Micro runner' clarifies the target and scope. The idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover safety, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, manner, target, and scope with zero wasted words. Every part of the description 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 simple, one-parameter, idempotent stop operation with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. The optional path parameter and the meaning of 'graceful' are the only context needed, and both are covered.

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 single optional 'path' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema carries that burden.

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 identifies the resource ('managed local Micro runner for this project'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from micro_dev_start and micro_dev_status without needing to open 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?

The description makes clear this is for stopping the local development runner for the current project, which signals the appropriate usage context. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope and action are clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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