bernstein_shutdown_orchestrator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a clear side effect: 'Writes the local SHUTDOWN signal file. Host effects: writes files.' It also communicates the destructive scope ('ENTIRE', 'including every run and worker'). It does not detail reversibility, permissions, or whether shutdown is graceful, but the disclosed effects go well beyond a vague mutation claim.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the main behavior, the alternative tool for narrower cancellation, and the local file side effect. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, scope, side effect, and alternative, but leaves workdir unexplained and does not describe the return value or post-shutdown state. Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations, a more complete description—especially about the parameter and consequences—would be expected. The output schema may compensate for return details, but the parameter omission remains a gap.

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 schema has one optional parameter, workdir, with no property description (coverage 0%). The description never mentions workdir or how it affects which project is shut down. The agent is left to infer that workdir selects the project context, which is not explicitly clarified.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Shut down the ENTIRE Bernstein orchestrator for this project, including every run and worker.' It clearly distinguishes itself from bernstein_cancel, which stops a single task while the orchestrator continues, making the tool's scope and purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'use bernstein_cancel to stop one task while the orchestrator keeps running.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool versus the alternative, and it also implies when a full shutdown (rather than a cancel) is appropriate.

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