stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that motion halts, the move queue empties, holding torque remains, and that disable_mosfets can later free the shaft. It doesn't mention what the response/return looks like or whether motion can be resumed after the stop, but the core side effects are well covered.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior; the second gives usage context; the third provides a crucial follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is nearly complete: behavior, usage context, side effects, and follow-up are all present. It loses a point because the sibling 'emergency_stop' tool is never addressed, leaving an agent uncertain about which stop-like tool to invoke in a given situation.

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 explains the only parameter's semantics: 'one motor' when provided, 'ALL motors' when omitted. This makes the default null meaningful. It doesn't specify the accepted identifier format for motor, but for a single simple optional parameter, this is sufficient.

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 verb ('halt') and a specific resource ('one motor, or ALL motors if motor is omitted'), so the agent understands what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate this from the sibling 'emergency_stop' tool, and the phrase 'the firmware's emergency stop' actively blurs that boundary, preventing a perfect 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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use for stop, halt, or any sign something is wrong.' It also suggests a follow-up action (disable_mosfets) to release the shaft. But it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention the alternative 'emergency_stop' sibling, so it falls 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.