agent_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that Claude background sessions retain their conversation and are resumable, that a tmux session is actually destroyed, that the on-disk transcript survives, and that the tool reports which outcome occurred. Missing are permission/auth requirements and any error behavior when the named session does not exist.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the type-dependent consequence, then the reporting behavior. No filler; every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers reversibility, destruction, and outcome reporting well. The remaining hole is the 'session' identifier format and how 'all'/'remove' interact with the stop, which the description never ties together.

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 coverage is 67% and the required 'session' parameter has no schema description at all; the description implies that session values are 'Claude background' vs 'tmux' types but never states the accepted identifier format. The type-dependent semantics are useful context, but the most critical parameter remains ambiguous, keeping this at the baseline.

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 and resource ('Stop a session') and immediately splits the behavior by session type (Claude background vs tmux), which is the key distinction an agent needs. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is NOT (e.g. agent_interrupt vs agent_stop, or agent_resume as the inverse), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer that resumable Claude sessions and destructive tmux stops behave differently, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of agent_interrupt' or when-not-to-stop guidance. The mention that Claude sessions 'can be resumed' hints at the alternative without naming it.

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