Halt an active cleaning task on a specified GS robot by providing its serial number. Useful when you need to cancel current robot operations immediately.
停止任务 / Stop task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_sn | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: whether stopping is destructive/irreversible, what happens to partially completed work, whether the task can be resumed, or what permissions are required. For a state-terminating operation this is a severe gap.
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?
Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded purpose statement, no usage context, and nothing that earns the absence of detail.
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?
In a rich task-lifecycle toolset with start/pause/resume/skip/stop variants, a two-word restatement of the name is wholly inadequate. No output schema exists to offload return-value explanation either.
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 single required parameter robot_sn has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Only the parameter's self-evident name hints at its meaning; the description adds no semantics about format or source of the serial number.
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?
'停止任务 / Stop task' is essentially a bilingual restatement of the tool name with no added scope, target, or context. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as pause_task, resume_task, or stop_navigation.
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 whatsoever on when to stop a task versus pausing it (pause_task), skipping an item (skip_task_item), or stopping navigation (stop_navigation). An agent must infer the entire routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.