Ddev Stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about what stopping does to containers, running processes, or persisted data, nor whether the operation is reversible or safe. For a state-mutating lifecycle command this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple command, though the parenthetical clarification sits at the end rather than integrated more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no statement of side effects or required environment state, the definition is only minimally complete for a lifecycle mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does clarify that project_name is 'a directory' rather than a project handle, which adds real meaning beyond the bare string type and '.' default. Still, it does not explain the default value's behavior or path resolution, so compensation is only partial.

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 specific verb and resource ('Stop the DDEV project'), so an agent knows exactly what action is performed. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling lando_stop, which performs the analogous action for a different local environment, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 guidance on when to stop a project, no prerequisites (e.g. project must be running), and no mention of the alternative lando_stop or of related siblings like ddev_start. The agent must infer all usage context on its own.

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