stop_clean

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden; it does disclose the write-flag prerequisite, which is useful operational context. It does not disclose whether stopping is reversible, whether the mission can be resumed afterward, or what robot state results — the key behavioral facts for a mutation-style tool.

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 short sentences, action first, prerequisite second, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-parameter surface keeps the tool simple. The one gap is that the effect of stopping (terminal vs. resumable) is left implicit for a control-flow tool where that distinction matters.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither adds nor misleads on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (stop) applied to a specific resource (the current mission), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from pause_clean or resume_clean, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick stop over pause.

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 gives one real usage constraint — the ROOMBA_ALLOW_WRITES=1 gating requirement — which is more than nothing. But it offers no guidance on when to stop versus pause or resume, nor any note that stop terminates a mission rather than suspending it.

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