stop_service

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

The annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as required privileges, side effects on dependent services, or failure modes. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds little beyond 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the conciseness comes at the cost of important details.

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 two required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage notes, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. In particular, the meaning and allowed values of `scope` are entirely unspecified.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for `name` or `scope`, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or what values `scope` accepts, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 clearly states the action (stop) and target (a systemd service), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's intent. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like start_service and restart_service, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus start_service, restart_service, or get_service_status. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage only from the verb and sibling names.

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