stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state the primary effect—stopping the unit's current command—but it does not mention edge cases, what happens to the unit afterward, whether the action is idempotent, or any failure conditions.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately efficient for a simple one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices some useful contextual information.

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 simple command tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core action. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools, what the unit does after stopping, and what happens if there is no current command, leaving some ambiguity.

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 schema has a single required parameter, unit_id, with no documentation. The description mentions 'unit' but does not explicitly explain the unit_id parameter or add format or semantic details beyond the property name. However, the property name is self-explanatory for a single integer parameter.

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 tool's function: making a unit stop its current command. It identifies both the action and the target resource, and it is distinct in meaning from the sibling tools even though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'hold' or other command-related tools. The description only states what it does, not the conditions or context that should trigger its use.

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