stomp_executor

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context ('assertive playback, overrides lower priorities') but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether it interrupts other executors. The return type is mentioned as 'str' but no specifics.

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 extremely concise with a clear header, parameter list, and return statement. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema mentioned), the description covers the basic function. However, it lacks context about when to choose stomp over similar tools like flash or swop, and could detail the return message format.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter documentation adds essential meaning. 'Executor number' and 'page-qualified addressing' clarify the parameters beyond the bare schema titles.

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 action 'Stomp an executor' and provides the specific behavior 'assertive playback, overrides lower priorities'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like flash_executor (temporary) or release_executor.

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 implies a use case with 'overrides lower priorities', suggesting it's for assertive control. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like swop_executor or top_executor.

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