emergency_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It explains that an audit log entry is created and a kill-switch signal is returned, and that the agent must stop immediately. This is transparent, though it could further clarify any irreversible consequences.

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 well-structured with a short paragraph followed by Args and Returns sections. It is not overly verbose and presents information clearly. Minor improvements could tighten the language.

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 no output schema, the description provides return fields with descriptions, which is helpful. It covers the main purpose and effect. However, it lacks prerequisites or permissions information, which would enhance completeness for a critical tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes an Args section that explains agent_id and reason. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, though it does not detail expected formats or 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 clearly states 'Löst einen Notfall-Stopp für einen Agent aus' (triggers an emergency stop for an agent). It specifies the verb (trigger) and resource (agent), and the function is distinct from siblings like apply_guardrails or check_compliance.

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 instructs that the calling agent MUST stop all actions upon receiving the kill-switch signal. This provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, which would be beneficial.

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