减速停止

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true, which provides little behavioral context. The description compensates by disclosing that power is maintained, stopping is smooth, the arm is not locked, and a confirmation message is returned. This is useful behavioral information, though it could mention additional side effects or safety implications.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence defines core behavior, the second notes return value, and the third provides usage differentiation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers what it does, the return value, and when to use it compared to emergency_stop. The presence of an output schema covers return details, and no further context seems necessary.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully defines the input space, and no parameter descriptions are needed. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 the tool performs a decelerated stop ('减速停止'), maintains power, smooth stop, and does not lock the arm. It also explicitly differentiates from emergency_stop by noting lock behavior, making the purpose specific and distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('正常停车用 stop') versus the alternative emergency_stop ('紧急情况下用 emergency_stop'), and explains the key difference (no locking). This gives clear usage guidance.

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