cst_stop_simulation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the key behavioral trait that stopping is irreversible (unlike pause), which is important. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like whether results are discarded, or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., simulation must be running). This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, both concise and to the point. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical distinction from pause is provided without fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and the irreversibility. However, the timeout_s parameter is unexplained, and there's no mention of what happens to partial results. For a simple tool, this is reasonable but has minor gaps.

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 schema has only one parameter, timeout_s, with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the purpose of timeout_s (e.g., how long to wait for the stop operation to complete). With such low schema coverage, the description should have explained this parameter, but it doesn't.

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 ('Stop and abort') and the resource ('a running CST simulation'). It distinguishes itself from pause by explicitly noting that a stopped simulation cannot be resumed. This differentiates it from the sibling tool cst_pause_simulation.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need to abort a simulation) and contrasts with pause, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like cst_resume_simulation. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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