stop_hmcl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the shutdown mechanism, the verification status probe, and the failure mode when no agent is reachable. This is good transparency, though it could mention idempotency or side effects, but for a simple stop tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first front-loads the action and method, the second adds verification and failure condition. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 simple stop tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, method, verification, and failure condition. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, covering 100% of the parameter space. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, 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 explicitly states the tool stops the headless HMCL JVM, distinguishing it from sibling stop_game. It specifies the action (POST /shutdown) and verification step, providing a clear, specific verb+resource definition.

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 provides a clear usage context: stop the HMCL JVM and verify its shutdown. It also notes a prerequisite ('run start_hmcl first') and failure condition, which helps the agent know when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with stop_game or other alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.

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