sim_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet fails to explain what 'stop' means (pause vs. halt), whether the state is preserved, or what the output schema returns. It restates the tool name without adding operational context.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and contains no wasted words. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema details, the description may be overly terse rather than appropriately concise.

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 simulation control tool with behavioral ambiguity (stop vs. shutdown) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the simulation state after stopping or leverage the fact that an output schema exists to explain what information is returned.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed to stop the simulation, which aligns with the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('simulation'), clearly indicating the tool halts execution. It distinguishes from query tools like 'get_signal_value' and from 'sim_run', though it could clarify the difference from 'shutdown_simulator' (stop pauses execution, shutdown terminates the process).

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 phrase 'Stop a running simulation' implies the precondition (simulation must be running), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'shutdown_simulator' or whether the simulation can be resumed afterward. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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