stop_mobile_base

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: it targets only profiled wheel velocities and includes a read-back verification. With no annotations, however, it does not disclose whether this is a command or an instantaneous state change, what side effects occur, or whether further motion commands are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states both the primary action and the verification behavior with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, but the description lacks parameter semantics and usage context, leaving required parameters such as prim_path unexplained. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably construct a correct call in this large tool family.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters, but it only arguably hints at 'profile' through the word 'profiled.' prim_path, command_id, and idempotency_key are not explained at all.

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 action and target: set every profiled wheel velocity target to zero and verify the stop target read-back. This is clearer than the tool name alone and semantically distinguishes it from set_mobile_base_velocity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call stop_mobile_base instead of related tools such as set_mobile_base_velocity, cancel_motion, pause_simulation, or stop_simulation. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'stop'.

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