Stop MITM proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral traits: auto-saving transforms to transforms.json and the side-effect that device proxy configuration may persist after stopping. This is meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the basic 'stop' action, though it could mention whether traffic is affected or requires restart.

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?

Two concise sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Stop the proxy') followed by important side-effects. Each sentence earns its place, though it could arguably be more dense with additional behavioral context.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, the persistence behavior, and a follow-up recommendation. It could benefit from noting whether stopping is idempotent or whether the proxy must be running first, and what the return indicates, but these are minor gaps for a simple stop operation.

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 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there's nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 tool stops the proxy. It distinguishes effectively from siblings by referencing start ('Stop the proxy' vs proxy_start), health checking (proxy_health), and transform saving (proxy_save_transforms). The verb+resource is specific and clear, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 clear operational context: transforms are auto-saved for next restart, and it warns that the device proxy may still be set, recommending proxy_health to detect this. It implies usage context well with the health check recommendation, though it doesn't explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios.

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