vibeside_cluster_shutdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cluster-wide scope, profile deletion, and a 'zero-zombie guarantee' (no orphaned processes), which is useful. It omits whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to in-flight tasks, permission requirements, or behavior when no cluster is running.

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 with no filler; the destructive scope is stated first. 'Zero-zombie guarantee' is slightly marketing-flavored but still conveys a concrete behavioral promise.

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 destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema teardown tool, the description covers scope and cleanup but leaves gaps: irreversibility, effect on running tasks, idempotency, and failure states. Adequate but not complete for a shutdown operation.

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 both 'force' and 'cleanProfiles' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default-override, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (terminate) and a precise resource (all cluster worker browser processes) plus a secondary cleanup action, so it is distinguishable from single-browser siblings like vibeside_stop_browser. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is preferable to vibeside_stop_browser or scaling the cluster to zero via vibeside_cluster_scale. Usage is only weakly implied by 'all cluster worker'.

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