emergency_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains the command is JMRI's actual decoder emergency-stop (speed -1.0), cuts power abruptly (rougher on mechanism/cargo), safe to call repeatedly, and mentions the local throttle-state cache, which covers all necessary transparency.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing necessary detail. Still, it is efficient for its complexity.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and sibling tools that include 'stop', the description is complete: it explains input (address with auto-acquisition), output (returns stopped: true), and behavioral details (redundant calls are no-ops, cache syncing). No gaps remain.

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 single parameter 'address' is described in detail: 'DCC address' and that it 'acquires the throttle automatically if this session doesn't already hold it'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and required status, though format constraints are not mentioned.

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 uses a specific verb ('emergency-stop') and resource ('locomotive') in the first sentence, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'stop' tool by emphasizing it is for safety-critical situations only, avoiding any ambiguity.

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 ('safety-critical stops: derailment risk, imminent collision') and when not to use ('not a synonym for routine stop'), and contrasts with 'stop' for smooth deceleration, leaving no doubt about appropriate usage.

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