Stop attacking the current target to disengage from combat and prevent further damage.
Stop attacking the current target
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stop_attack"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must be currently attacking), or what happens if there is no target. A simple stop command could benefit from clarifying whether it also clears the target.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple stop action.
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 (0 params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks edge-case information such as behavior when no attack is in progress or whether the target is unset. For a mutation tool with no annotations, slightly more detail would improve completeness.
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, and the description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not mislead or omit necessary parameter information.
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 'Stop attacking the current target' uses a specific verb ('Stop') and identifies the resource ('current target'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'attack_entity' and 'stop_movement'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop_movement' or 'disconnect'. While the name implies the use case, there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.