stop_program

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety or idempotency hints. The description only states the operation without elaborating on side effects, edge cases (e.g., behavior when no program is running), or whether the action is idempotent. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the core function clearly. A minor gap is the lack of differentiation from emergency_stop, but this falls under usage guidance rather than completeness of the tool's own behavior.

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% (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter-level details.

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 action ('Stop') and the specific resource ('the currently running .rxe program'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like stop_motor or emergency_stop by naming the program type.

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 emergency_stop or stop_motor. There is no mention of exclusions or scenario-based recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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