Stop Proxy

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. It states the action and that recording statistics are returned, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether recorded frames are preserved, or any prerequisites. For a state-changing operation this is a notable 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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and return value without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists so return values need not be fully detailed in the description. The core purpose and outcome are covered. Missing details like error behavior or prerequisites are minor for this level of complexity.

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 the schema provides no description for 'port'. The description's '指定端口' clarifies that the port identifies which proxy to stop, which partially compensates, but it does not explain what the integer should represent (e.g., local listening port) or any constraints.

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 uses a specific verb '停掉' (stop) with a clear resource '指定端口的代理' (proxy on the specified port), and even specifies the return value. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_proxy and stop_listener without requiring further inspection.

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 purpose implies when to use it (stop a proxy on a specific port), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives such as stop_listener. The inference is straightforward, yet no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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