pivot_stop_all_tunnels

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

The description conveys a destructive action (stops tunnels), but with no annotations, it fails to disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or side effects. The bare description is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It effectively communicates the tool's function in minimal space.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, single action), the description is nearly complete. However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., all tunnels in the current session or globally), and the output schema is not shown but the description does not need to explain return values. Slightly lacking in scope definition.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The description already captures the tool's purpose adequately, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 verb 'stop' and the resource 'all active tunnels and port forwards'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'pivot_stop_tunnel' which targets a specific tunnel, making the scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the goal is to stop all tunnels, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'pivot_stop_tunnel' or mention when not to use it (e.g., if only a specific tunnel should be stopped). No alternative guidance is provided.

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