aiworkhub_source_graph_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the daemon is unregistered and states the goal ('no cross-repository indexing thread survives'), clarifying the side effect. It omits permission requirements and whether indexed data is discarded, but the operative side effect is covered.

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 sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the trigger rationale follows. Every clause earns its place.

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. For a zero-parameter lifecycle mutation tool, the description covers what it does, when it fires, and the key side effect; only permissions and the fate of index data are unaddressed.

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 no parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 compound verb ('Stop and unregister') and a precise resource ('the active repository's Source Graph indexing daemon'), with the 'if any' qualifier indicating tolerance for an absent daemon. This is readily distinguishable from the sibling aiworkhub_source_graph_ensure_started without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the lifecycle contexts ('workspace/repository switch and extension deactivation') that trigger this tool, which is strong context for an agent invoking it. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or naming the counterpart tool to call instead.

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