bridge_stop

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

The description transparently discloses a major side effect: 'Every MCP tool will fail afterwards until mcpBridgeStart() is run again.' However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which implies the tool has no state-changing side effects. This contradicts the description's clear statement that stopping the bridge alters the availability of all other tools, so the score is 1 due to the contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the core action in both Chinese and English. It uses only two sentences to convey the action and the key consequence. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but not bloated, and all information is essential.

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?

The description covers the main actionainer, the result (release port), and the critical consequence (all tools fail until restart). It does not describe the return value, but for a simple stop operation this is a minor omission. Given the absence of output schema and parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 parametersate. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly does not waste space on parameter details. The schema already covers the empty parameter set completely.

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 states a clear action: 'Stop the bridge and release the port.' It names the specific resource (bridge) and the effect (releasing the port). The additional consequence of all MCP tools failing clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like bridge_status, bridge_restart, and bridge_ping.

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 when to use it (to intentionally stop the bridge) and mentions the recovery path via mcpBridgeStart(). However, it does not explicitly compare it with alternatives like bridge_restart or state when one would NOT want to use it. The guidance is present but not fully developed.

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