oc_stop

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint: true annotation by stating that OpenChrome is auto-relaunched on the next tool call. This is a behavioral detail not present in the annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on what exactly gets shut down (sessions/tabs) or the impact on shared clients, though that is partially covered by the keepChrome parameter. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Shut down OpenChrome and close Chrome'), followed by a single behavioral note. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is zero waste.

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 simple shutdown tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core action and the auto-relaunch behavior. It doesn't describe return values or side effects on sessions/tabs, but those are partially addressed in the parameter descriptions. Given the low complexity, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers both parameters (dryRun and keepChrome) with clear descriptions, and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Shut down OpenChrome and close Chrome.' This is a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It also adds the behavior that it will auto-relaunch on the next tool call, which clarifies the lifecycle. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but no sibling appears to offer the same stop/shutdown function, so the distinction is adequate.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The auto-relaunch note hints that it's safe to call repeatedly, but it doesn't provide decision criteria for selecting this tool over others (e.g., oc_connection_health or oc_reap_orphans). This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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