cst_stop_simulation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers the single most important behavioral fact: the action is irreversible and forces a full restart. It omits edge behavior such as what happens if no simulation is running, whether partial results are retained, and whether the call blocks until termination.

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, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the destructive caveat follows immediately rather than being buried or omitted.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less control tool the description covers what matters: what it does and the irreversibility risk. The only unaddressed gaps are failure conditions (no running simulation) and result-retention semantics, which are minor for a stop command.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related omission exists here.

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 pair (stop/abort) and the exact resource (a running CST simulation), and immediately differentiates itself from the pause sibling in the very next sentence. An agent can identify this as the terminal-kill operation without opening any 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?

Names the alternative (cst_pause_simulation) and supplies the discriminating condition: pause is resumable, stop is not. It stops short of an explicit directive ('use pause instead if you plan to resume'), but the selection criterion is fully inferable from the contrast.

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