aiworkhub_manager_loop_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: this is a write operation, and it is non-blocking ('without waiting for it'). It does not say whether termination is graceful or forced, what happens to the turn's state or queued work, or whether the turn can be resumed afterward.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the mutation class and the action, with the non-blocking qualifier attached where it matters. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. However, for a mutation with no annotations, the description leaves the effect on the loop/turn lifecycle and the gracefulness of the process kill unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description cannot add parameter meaning that does not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'end a running turn's CLI process now.' The 'MANAGER WRITE' prefix signals the mutation class. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as loop_close, loop_discard, or loop_continue, so an agent must infer which termination semantics apply.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The description says what the tool does but never tells the agent when to choose it over loop_close, loop_discard, or loop_rotate, all of which plausibly affect a running turn.

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