stop_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names the endpoint and the basic action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., abrupt termination, unsaved progress), error behavior when no game is running, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a minimal mutation disclosure.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action, includes the endpoint for useful context, and contains no filler words or redundant information.

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 parameterless stop operation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention expected responses or result behavior, and with no output schema or annotations, an agent must infer success/failure semantics. However, the 0-param complexity keeps this at a minimum viable level.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param detail, which is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Stop the currently running game process' and includes the endpoint 'POST /launch/stop'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_hmcl, which would stop a different process.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_hmcl or launch_game. The phrase 'currently running game process' implies a condition, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the intended workflow are provided.

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