stop_outputs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (which action types are stopped and that both channels are disabled), but says nothing about whether the stopped operation can be resumed, whether channel configuration is preserved, or what happens on a redundant call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and immediately qualifies the target and effect. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and safety already conveyed by annotations, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. Minor gap: it does not say whether configuration state is retained after the stop.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents 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 names a specific verb ('Stop') and enumerates the exact operation types it terminates (sweep/counter/pulse/burst) plus the secondary effect of disabling both output channels. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_outputs and configure_sweep, which start or shape operations rather than halt them.

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 implies the usage context (halting active waveform/pulse generation), but it never states when to prefer this over set_outputs or configure_channel, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active sweep. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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