stop_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that omitting node_id stops every node in the lab, which is a significant side effect. However, it lacks any mention of whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or how it handles running processes, leaving some transparency 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the critical conditional behavior. Every word contributes, with no padding or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers both invocation modes (single node vs all nodes) and the output schema handles return details. It does not delve into side effects or prerequisites, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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 provides no descriptions for node_id, and coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting node_id triggers a lab-wide stop, which goes beyond the schema's bare type definition. Still, it does not elaborate on what value node_id should take (e.g., a node's integer ID) beyond the schema's type, so the compensation is partial.

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 the resource ('one node, or every node in the lab if node_id is omitted'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like start_node, delete_node, and update_node by explicitly naming the stop operation and its variable scope.

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 provides implicit usage context by explaining how to target a single node (provide node_id) versus all nodes (omit node_id). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or mention when to use stop_node instead of delete_node or start_node, so the guidance remains implied.

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