aiworkhub_source_graph_stop

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the daemon is unregistered, the operation is scoped to the active repository, 'if any' implies graceful no-op behavior, and the purpose is to prevent cross-repository indexing threads from surviving.

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 tightly written sentences are front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the lifecycle context. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 zero parameters, a present output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides everything an agent needs: what is stopped, what is unregistered, when it is invoked, and why it matters.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 gives a specific verb pair, 'Stop and unregister', a precise resource, 'Source Graph indexing daemon', and scope, 'active repository's ... if any'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools such as ensure_started, health, and refresh_now even though those siblings are not named.

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?

It states exactly when the tool is used: on workspace/repository switch and extension deactivation. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative lifecycle tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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