Stop a bellows-owned llama-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the graceful stop strategy (SIGTERM then SIGKILL) and the ownership constraint, which are critical behavioral traits. It does not detail the grace period length or error handling, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences that front-load the action and method. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context: the stopping method, ownership constraint, and implicit usage hint. It could mention potential error conditions or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides (the port's ownership constraint is repeated in the schema). No extra value is added for the parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('gracefully stop') and the specific resource ('llama-server that bellows started'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'start_server'. The mention of SIGTERM and SIGKILL further specifies the behavior.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it 'refuses to touch processes it does not own', indicating when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to related siblings like 'server_status' or 'eval_history', leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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