stop_animation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that the tool affects 'all lights' when clearing native Hue effects and explicitly names the two categories it stops. It could go further by mentioning what happens to light states after stopping (e.g., whether current colors/brightness are preserved) or whether it is idempotent, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action in the first sentence and then provides scoping details in the second. Every phrase earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple global stop action, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to call the tool and what to expect. It could mention idempotence or what happens if nothing is running, but that is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.

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 baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. It appropriately focuses on behavior instead.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Stop any currently running animation or effect.' It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming animate_lights as the source of background phase animations and listing native Hue effects (candle, fire, prism). This lets an agent know exactly what the tool affects and how it differs from related tools like set_effect or animate_lights.

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 first sentence directly conveys when to use this tool: whenever an animation or effect is running and needs to be stopped. The second sentence adds context by identifying the exact sources it targets, which helps with selection against siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_effect for stopping a specific effect, so it falls just short of a 5.

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