stop_simulation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action (stop) without explaining consequences such as irreversibility, state changes, permission requirements, or audit implications. The schema hints at governance (approval_token, reason) but the description does not surface these.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose and context, making it highly concise.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with four parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema. It fails to explain key context such as the default behavior when simulation_id is omitted, governance requirements, or what happens to the simulation's state after stopping.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Manually stop one or more active simulations.' It uses a specific verb (stop) and resource (simulations), and differentiates itself from siblings like simulate_attack by indicating the inverse action.

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 phrase 'for safety or compliance' provides contextual guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer this is the appropriate tool for halting simulations.

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