stop_motion

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

Adds operational context the annotations do not cover: always available, never rate limited, never needs approval, and critically that it does not latch. Those are exactly the traits an agent needs before firing a safety-adjacent action; only the fate of an in-flight plan beyond the current trajectory is left implicit, and the output schema covers the response.

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?

Two sentences, the action stated first, then availability guarantees, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 safety action with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: scope of the halt, non-latching semantics, and the escalation path to estop. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It correctly implies no scoping argument is needed for such a call.

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 verb and resource with scope: stop the current motion, covering both the arm trajectory and any gripper action. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling estop, which blocks further motion rather than halting the current one.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('use estop to also block further motion') and the condition that selects it, plus the non-latching property that tells the agent this is a transient halt. An agent does not need to infer when to reach for estop instead.

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