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 and gives almost nothing: it does not say whether stopping is graceful, whether data/volumes persist, whether other running services are affected, or what state the project ends in. 'Stop' implies a reversible mutation but no side effects are disclosed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, so structurally fine. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving key behavior unstated.

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 needn't be explained, but with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin for an environment-lifecycle tool. It should at least cover the default project scope and what stopping entails.

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 single parameter project_name has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — notably omitting that it defaults to '.' (current directory). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('Lando project'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like lando_start or ddev_stop, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus lando_start, lando_exec, ddev_stop, or other environment tools. It assumes the agent already knows what stopping a Lando project means and when that is appropriate.

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