ghost_stop

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states both the main effect (halting all automation) and an important side effect (releasing held modifier keys). It could mention whether the browser or session is left open, but for an emergency-stop command the description is substantially transparent.

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 filler. The 'Emergency stop' label is immediately actionable, and both behavior components are stated with minimal words.

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, the description covers what it does, when it is used, and what effect to expect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from ghost_reset, but the emergency framing plus the modifier-key release detail make the tool's role clear enough.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than explaining nonexistent inputs.

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 names a specific verb ('stop'), a clear resource ('all automation'), and a concrete side effect ('release held modifier keys'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ghost_wait or ghost_reset because it is framed as an emergency halt rather than a pause or reset.

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 'Emergency stop' label explicitly establishes when this tool should be used: when automation must be halted immediately. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the emergency framing supplies sufficient usage context for a zero-parameter stop tool.

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