bernstein_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the action (writing a signal file) but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the shutdown is guaranteed to complete. The term 'graceful' implies safe behavior but lacks detail.

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 concise with a clear structure: action, mechanism, args, returns. It uses minimal sentences effectively. While it could be slightly more concise, it is well-organized and earns its sentences.

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?

Despite lacking behavioral transparency, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, how it works, the parameter, and the return value (confirmation). For a simple shutdown tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, it is nearly complete.

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 only parameter, workdir, is described as 'Project root directory (default: current directory)'. This adds context beyond the schema's title and type, clarifying the default and the directory's role. Schema coverage is listed as 0%, but the description effectively covers the parameter's semantics.

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 purpose: 'Request a graceful Bernstein shutdown' and explains the mechanism by writing a SHUTDOWN signal file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bernstein_approve or bernstein_run, which have different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage for shutting down Bernstein gracefully, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools suggest distinct functionalities, but the description lacks direct guidance on selection.

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