bulc_stop_fds

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true (indicating a potentially disruptive operation) and readOnlyHint=false (confirming this is a write operation). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool 'sends stop signal and waits for graceful shutdown,' clarifying the operational behavior and confirming it's not an immediate kill. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core action and behavior. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

For a destructive operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how it behaves. It covers the essential action and shutdown process, though it could benefit from mentioning potential side effects or error conditions given the destructive nature.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'force' parameter is fully documented in the schema). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 target ('a running FDS simulation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulc_stop_evac' or 'bulc_clear_fds_data', which might handle related stopping/clearing operations.

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 context ('running FDS simulation') and mentions graceful shutdown behavior, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulc_stop_evac' for evacuation simulations or 'bulc_clear_fds_data' for data cleanup. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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