emergency_stop

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds 'immediately brake through every connected control path' and 'safe,' which clarifies the concrete behavior and safety profile. It does not repeat annotation data verbatim.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices essential parameter information for brevity, preventing a perfect score. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 with potentially serious consequences, the description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., vehicle existence), side effects, or return value (despite an output schema existing). It is too minimal for complete understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description omits any mention of the only parameter (vehicle_id). It provides no information about the parameter's purpose, usage, or default behavior, leaving a critical gap.

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 ('brake') and scope ('every connected control path'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like vehicle_control or autonomy_stop. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While 'emergency' is implied by the name and 'immediately brake,' it does not state prerequisites, contraindications, or compare with related tools like vehicle_control.

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