simulation_stop

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a post-condition ('report where it stopped'), but says nothing about whether stopping is graceful, whether state is preserved, whether a running simulation is required, or what the report contains.

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 tightly written sentence with no filler; the core action and outcome are front-loaded.

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 control/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the parameters, whether the stop is destructive, or the format of the 'report where it stopped' result. An agent would have to guess at important behavior before invoking it.

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 schema has two parameters (work_dir, model_root) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what either one means or how it affects the stop operation. The description therefore does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Stop the EventController') and adds the post-condition 'report where it stopped,' so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as simulation_reset or simulation_status, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like simulation_reset or simulation_status. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the word 'Stop.'

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