Lando Stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Stop'. It does not disclose whether stopping is reversible/restartable, what state is preserved, whether the project must currently be running, or what happens on failure. That is a significant gap for a state-mutating environment tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the action and its target are stated immediately.

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 explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin on the behavioral and parameter detail an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add that project_name is 'a directory' (the schema only says string with default '.'), but it does not explain that '.' means the current directory or whether the value is required, leaving the default semantics unclear.

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?

Names a specific verb (Stop) and resource (the Lando project) and clarifies what project_name refers to by noting it is a directory. This distinguishes it cleanly from lando_start and ddev_stop by name, though it does not explicitly contrast against them.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names a sibling such as lando_start or ddev_stop as the alternative. The agent must infer that this stops a running Lando environment from the name alone.

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