stop_nfproxy_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'stop' without detailing side effects, whether it's safe, or what dependencies exist. This is insufficient for a mutation action.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient for a simple action, but it lacks essential context. It earns a middle score because it is not overly verbose but is under-informative.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description does not cover return values or the tool's effect in context. It omits important details like what happens after stopping or any prerequisites.

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 description does not explain the 'service_id' parameter, its format, or how to obtain it. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 action (stop) and the target (nfproxy engine), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it could be more specific about what stopping the engine entails, but it distinguishes from siblings like stop_nfregex_service.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stop_nfregex_service, delete_nfproxy_service). There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or conditions for stopping.

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