Stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it works even while motion is locked, and it interrupts ongoing exploration or experiments. It does not detail side effects like goal cancellation or return values, but the additions are meaningful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero wasted words. The most important constraint ('Always allowed, even while motion is locked') follows immediately and is clearly separated.

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-schema stop command with annotations covering destructiveness, the description supplies the essential behavioral context: it stops all motion immediately, can interrupt ongoing tasks, and is always permitted. Nothing critical for correct 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids inventing any.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop all motion immediately.' It also specifies scope by including 'an exploration or experiment in progress,' which helps distinguish it from motion commands like move or turn. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as reset_position, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Provides a condition ('Always allowed, even while motion is locked') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like reset_position. Usage is implied: call when you need to halt all motion. No exclusions or named alternatives are given.

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