ps_state_halt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'immediately halt' implies a potentially disruptive action, it doesn't specify consequences like whether the halt is reversible, what happens to ongoing processes, or if special permissions are required. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that appears to be a critical control operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no complex output schema.

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 that appears to perform a potentially destructive action (halting an agent) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'halt' means in practical terms, what the circuit breaker metaphor implies, or what the user should expect after invocation. The lack of parameter guidance further compounds the incompleteness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (agentId and reason), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('immediately halt') and target ('an agent') with a specific mechanism ('by opening its circuit breaker'), providing a concrete verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ps_state_reset or ps_state_recalibrate, which might also affect agent states.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like ps_state_reset, ps_state_recalibrate, and ps_state_resume that might relate to agent state management, the description offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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