emergency_stop

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that this is JMRI's actual decoder e-stop (speed -1.0), cuts power abruptly, is rougher on mechanism, and is safe to call repeatedly with a silent no-op for redundancy. Also mentions auto-acquires throttle and returns confirmed status.

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?

Description is well-structured with a lead sentence, argument section, and detailed usage notes. While it is longer than necessary, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability. Minor redundancy ('Auto-acquires the throttle if needed' could be integrated into the argument description).

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, behavioral details, usage guidelines, and return value. No gaps remain for effective agent usage.

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?

Only one parameter (address) with 0% schema coverage, so description compensates fully. It explains 'DCC address' and that it auto-acquires the throttle if needed, adding useful meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs an immediate emergency stop using JMRI's decoder e-stop command. Specifies the action (emergency-stop), resource (locomotive), and method (decoder e-stop). Distinguishes from routine stop by emphasizing it's for safety-critical situations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use ONLY for safety-critical stops: derailment risk, imminent collision, or any situation needing an immediate halt.' Also explicitly warns not to use as a synonym for routine 'stop', providing clear exclusion guidance. No mention of sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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