emergency_stop

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those flags: motors are coasted (not actively braked) and the action is immediate. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Six words in one sentence with no filler; the key action and scope are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 no-argument command with no output schema, the description covers the necessary information: the action (coast), immediacy, and scope. It leaves out explicit guidance about post-state or program status, but annotations cover idempotence/safety and the action is fully specified.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics. The 'all three output ports' phrase clarifies the implicit target, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('coast') and resource ('all three output ports'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like stop_motor/stop_motors by specifying the coast action and the all-ports scope.

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 implies an emergency/all-ports stopping context with 'Immediately' and 'all three,' but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over stop_motor/stop_motors/stop_program or mention exclusions. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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