stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the immediate effect (park at current pose, stop chasing waypoint) and implies a safe stop action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., if called during motion), but for a zero-parameter stop command, the effect is sufficiently clear.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states what it does; the second states when to use it. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters, the description fully explains its purpose and the exact situations to invoke it. No additional details (like return values) are needed since the tool is a state-changing command and there is no output schema complexity.

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 no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the schema (empty object) is fully covered by the description's inference that no inputs are required.

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?

Clearly states the action (park at current pose) and the effect (local planner stops chasing last waypoint), distinguishing it as a termination command. The description is specific and unambiguous, easily differentiated from siblings like drive_to or publish_object.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call: 'when the instruction is finished, or after you have published a numerical or object-reference answer.' Provides clear triggering conditions, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it. Alternative tools are not mentioned, but the context makes the timing obvious.

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