stop_ramp_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive action ('killing its tmux session'), which implies irreversible termination of the test process. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., data loss, cleanup needs), permissions required, or error handling. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Stop a running RAMP test') and efficiently explains the mechanism. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and operation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive action with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but misses details like what happens after stopping (e.g., cleanup, status updates) or error scenarios. For a tool that kills processes, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'session' documented as 'tmux session name to kill.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that the session corresponds to a RAMP test. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 specific action ('Stop a running RAMP test') and the mechanism ('by killing its tmux session on the RAMP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_ramp_test' (which initiates tests) and 'ixia_stop' (which stops different hardware). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage context by specifying it stops 'a running RAMP test,' suggesting it should be used when a test is actively executing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'ixia_stop' for hardware control or 'test_status' for checking status before stopping. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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