brigade_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the task tree must be '正在运行的' (currently running), implying a condition, but does not disclose side effects on child tasks, authentication requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens to incomplete tasks.

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 redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter operation 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 seemingly destructive termination tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits what happens to the task tree, error conditions, permission needs, and the expected result, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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%, and the schema already documents 'run' as the required mcpId returned by brigade_run. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('终止' / terminate) and resource ('军团任务树' / brigade task tree), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like brigade_status or brigade_list, but the action is unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as brigade_status, brigade_list, or brigade_run. It does not state prerequisites, when termination is appropriate, or when it should not be used.

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