stop_game

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 but does not say whether the stop is graceful or forceful, whether unsaved state is lost, or what happens if no process is running. For a potentially destructive process-control tool, this is a meaningful 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?

The description is a single six-word sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and target, making it quick for an agent to parse and act on.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description supplies the core precondition ('running') and the exact action. However, it does not mention what happens when the game is not running or whether the call returns any confirmation, leaving minor edge-case ambiguity.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; this matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Stop') and a clear resource ('the running Broforce process'), making the action and target unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_game and restart_level without needing to inspect schemas.

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 word 'running' implies the tool should only be called when a Broforce process is active, but the description does not explicitly address when to use it versus alternatives such as launch_game or wait_for_game. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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