stop_episode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and actually discloses meaningful side effects: frames, event log and summary are persisted, and it enumerates the returned run ID, status and artifact paths. It does not state preconditions (must an episode be active?) or error behavior, which a terminal state-changing tool should ideally cover.

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 tightly written sentences: the action is front-loaded and the second sentence enumerates return fields with parenthetical formats (events.jsonl path, PNG frame directory, summary.json path). Every clause carries information, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully documents the return shape itself (run, status, artifacts with paths), which makes it reasonably self-sufficient. It falls short only on lifecycle preconditions and what happens if no episode is running, which matter for a terminal operation in a stateful simulation.

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 the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures the empty parameter set.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('End the current simulation and save its frames, event log and summary'), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It is distinguishable from siblings like observe or move_relative, though it never explicitly contrasts with reset_task, which is the closest ambiguous alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'End the current simulation' suggests calling it to wrap up an episode, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no guidance on how it relates to reset_task in the sibling set. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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