emergency_stop

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Emergency stop.' It fails to explain what happens (e.g., whether it latches, stops all motors, requires a reset), what the side effects are, or any safety implications. This is a significant transparency gap for a safety-critical tool.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It uses one word that repeats the tool name, providing no additional value. While brevity is good, this lacks meaningful content and fails to be useful.

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 safety-critical nature and the presence of sibling tools like 'stop' and 'clear_emergency_stop', the description is insufficient. It does not explain the emergency behavior, how it differs from a normal stop, or whether any reset is needed. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this missing context.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. According to the baseline rule, 0 params earns a 4, and there is no further parameter information to add.

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 'Emergency stop.' essentially restates the tool name without specifying the resource or scope (what is stopped, e.g., all motors, robot). It is a tautology that adds no new information beyond the name itself, so it does not clarify the exact function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'stop' or how it relates to 'clear_emergency_stop'. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this over alternatives.

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