computer.emergency_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It states that the effect is immediate, global across automation, checked before every action, and persistent until reset_emergency_stop. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's side effects and lifecycle.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The critical 'EMERGENCY STOP' and 'immediately halt' concepts are front-loaded, and the persistence condition is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 with no output schema, this description is structurally complete. It covers what the tool does, when its effect applies, how long it persists, and how to undo it. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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, and the schema shows an empty properties object. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details. There is nothing more needed 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?

The description uses a specific verb phrase—'immediately halt all automation'—making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also names the exact reset counterpart, reset_emergency_stop, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 clearly indicates this is a global kill switch that is 'checked before every action and attempt,' so the agent can infer when to use it: whenever automation must be stopped immediately. It also states persistence until reset, implying the normal follow-up is reset_emergency_stop. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but the emergency framing makes that less necessary.

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