emergency_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the side effects (stopping all movement, disabling MOSFETs, clearing the queue), the return behavior ('success confirmation'), and the notable special case that broadcasts receive no responses. This is substantive, though it does not mention any safety or re-enable 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 compact and front-loaded with the action and effects, followed by return info and parameter details. The firmware command reference is minor extra context but does not bloat the text. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting feels slightly fragmented.

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 one-parameter emergency command with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what happens, what is returned, and how to specify the motor. It could be more explicit about the structure of the success confirmation and error behavior, but it is largely sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this well by explaining the 'motor' parameter's possible forms: an alias number, a 16-hex-digit unique ID, or 'all' for broadcast, with an example and a behavioral consequence. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type.

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 specific action plus its complete effect: 'stop all movement, disable MOSFETS, clear the queue.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'stop' or 'disable_mosfets' by combining distinct behaviors and naming the exact resource it operates on.

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 usage context is implied through the behavior description and the phrase 'Emergency stop,' but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over 'stop' or 'disable_mosfets.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the selection decision mostly to inference.

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