feed_hold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action ('pause') and command sent ('!'), but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether motion stops abruptly or smoothly), prerequisites (e.g., machine must be running), or response behavior. It adds some context but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Pause machine motion immediately') and adds necessary technical detail ('Sends '!' realtime command'). Every word serves a purpose with no waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple command with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not cover potential outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score above 3 due to the lack of parameters.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Pause machine motion immediately') and the resource affected ('machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cycle_resume' (which resumes) or 'soft_reset' (which resets). It includes the exact command sent ('!'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage context by specifying 'immediately' and naming the command, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'soft_reset' or 'cycle_resume'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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