stop_ir_following

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Stop IR following behavior' essentially restates the tool name and does not add context about safety, reversibility, whether the robot halts immediately, or what happens if the behavior isn't active. It lacks detail beyond the literal action.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a parameterless stop command.

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 simple stop command with no parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It clearly states the action, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it lacks any additional context about usage scenarios or side effects, which might be expected given the lack of annotations.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline per instructions is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none; the schema is already fully covered (100%).

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 'Stop IR following behavior' uses a specific verb ('stop') and identifies the precise resource ('IR following behavior'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop' (general stop) and 'stop_ir_evading' (stopping evasion).

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 usage as the counterpart to 'start_ir_following' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'stop' or 'stop_ir_evading'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making the usage guidelines implied rather than explicit.

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