stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two key behaviors: immediate stopping of both motors and bypassing the command lock (safety fast path). This goes beyond what a simple 'stop motors' description would provide. It does not mention any side effects or the state of the command lock after execution, but for a simple parameterless stop command, the disclosed details are substantive.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Immediately stop both drive motors'), and the second adds essential safety context. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a simple parameterless tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what it does (stops motors) and key behavioral nuance (bypasses command lock). The mention of 'both drive motors' and 'safety fast path' provides sufficient clarity for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete enough, though it could hypothetically mention whether it works in any state, but that is not a significant gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool gets a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are no parameters to explain.

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 action: 'Immediately stop both drive motors.' This is a specific verb ('stop') with a clear resource ('both drive motors'), distinguishing it from sibling movement commands like move_forward or turn_left. The additional context about bypassing the command lock further clarifies its specific role as a safety stop.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is a safety fast path that bypasses the command lock, implying it should be used for immediate or emergency stops, especially when the command lock might otherwise block a stop. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the safety-specific language makes the intended use case clear.

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