stop

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: auto-acquires throttle if needed, JMRI ignores redundant requests, and a local speed cache keeps correct current speed. It lacks detail on potential side effects, but the main safety aspects are 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 well-organized: core action, parameter explanation, usage contrast, and safety notes. Each sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary words.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, behavioral nuances, and safe repeated invocation. No additional context is needed.

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 only parameter 'address' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds meaning: 'DCC address. Auto-acquires the throttle if needed.' This provides context beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Bring a locomotive to a controlled stop (speed 0%)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'emergency_stop' by contrasting normal vs. panic stops.

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 tells when to use this tool ('normal, intentional halt') versus when not to (panic/safety stop, use emergency_stop). Also notes it is safe to call repeatedly, even when already stopped.

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