cst_stop_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior: the simulation is aborted and cannot be resumed. However, it could add more about side effects (e.g., unsaved data) or safety (e.g., multiple calls). Given the tool's simplicity (0 params), the disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, zero waste. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the action, the second provides crucial contrast with pause. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, no parameters, and low complexity, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and irreversibility. Could note that a running simulation is required, but that is implied. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the action and irreversibility. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description meets that standard.

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 uses specific verbs ('Stop and abort') and resource ('running CST simulation'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'pause' by noting irreversibility. This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from alternatives.

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 explicitly contrasts with pause ('Unlike pause, a stopped simulation cannot be resumed'), providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running simulation), so it misses some exclusions.

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