estop

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses what is destroyed (all plans invalidated), what is blocked afterwards (motion/gripper/control tools), the reset condition (human approves reset_estop), and runtime traits (always available, no rate limit, no approval). It also flags the hardware-e-stop boundary, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action first, then the consequences and gating, then the safety caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers consequences, availability, and the reset path. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly under pressure.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'reason' and its audience. The description only adds that any reason is accepted, which is marginal over structured data — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific action with an explicit blast radius: stop all arm and gripper motion, invalidate every plan, and refuse motion/gripper/control tools until reset. That effect profile is distinguishable from stop_motion and the other siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It makes clear this is the unconditional, always-available safety action, names reset_estop as the human-gated exit path, and warns it is not a substitute for the hardware e-stop. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over stop_motion, but the described scope implies the answer.

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