stop_attack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the behavioral effect precisely (it stops both auto-attack and hunting), which is useful, but it omits what happens if the character is not currently attacking/hunting (error vs. no-op) and any resulting state change or response.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the affected actions. Appropriate sizing for a zero-argument command.

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, no-output command, the description covers the essential behavior. It could add a note on the no-op/error case or its relationship to the attack/hunt siblings, but nothing critical for 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument command, consistent with the empty schema.

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 specific verb (stop) and the exact resources affected (auto-attack and hunting), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling 'attack' and 'hunt' tools by inversion. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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: an agent can infer it should be called when it wants to cancel an ongoing auto-attack or hunt. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as simply issuing a different action.

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