stop_backtest

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this terminates something. The description adds the ownership constraint (only processes this server started), which is genuinely new information. It does not disclose whether the stop is graceful or forced, whether partial reports are preserved, or what happens when no process 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 zero waste; the scope constraint is packed into the same clause rather than padded out. Nothing is redundant or missing structurally.

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 zero-parameter destructive toggle paired with run_backtest, the core information is present and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive operation it says nothing about post-conditions: whether the run is aborted and discarded, whether results are kept, or what the caller observes afterwards.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no identifier to pass, meaning the server implicitly tracks the active backtest, and the description is consistent with that model without needing to explain any inputs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Stop a Strategy Tester process") and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ("this server started") that separates it from stopping arbitrary OS processes. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool run_backtest, but the pairing is obvious enough from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the stop action for a backtest that run_backtest launched. The "this server started" qualifier usefully implies an exclusion (processes started externally cannot be stopped), but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, what state it should be called in, or what to do if no backtest is running.

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