bluesky_shutdown

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the tool name: 'process exit left to host.' This clarifies that the tool only signals shutdown and does not terminate the process itself. With no annotations, this disclosure is meaningful, though it does not address other potential side effects.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Signal graceful shutdown') and adds the key qualifier about process exit. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential behavior, and the output schema presumably handles return values. The lack of usage guidance is minor but not a significant gap for such a straightforward tool.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema. The description naturally provides no parameter information, but the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.

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 identifies the tool as signaling a graceful shutdown, with a specific verb ('signal') and resource ('graceful shutdown'). It is distinct from sibling tools like bluesky_help or show_outbox_card, which serve different purposes.

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 (call when you want a graceful shutdown) but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, making it acceptable but not explicit.

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