reachy_stop_continuous_move

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

The description accurately states the direct effect: stopping continuous movement. However, with no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not disclose side effects, idempotency, blocking behavior, or whether motors are disabled.

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 six-word sentence with a direct subject-verb-object structure. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to meaning.

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, no-output-schema command, the description contains the essential information an agent needs: what action is performed and on what resource. It would benefit from a brief usage note about when to stop continuous movement, but the current scope is largely sufficient.

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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Stop continuous movement' on the robot. This precisely identifies the operation and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like reachy_start_continuous_move, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reachy_go_to_zero, reachy_wake_up, or reachy_go_to_sleep. The only usage signal is the implied scenario of continuous movement being active, but no prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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