stop_vibrationSends a zero command to the vibration channel to stop vibration output; use stop_device instead when all device outputs must be stopped.
发送震动通道归零指令；TF-PTPRO 的单通道停止帧与吮吸通道的隔离效果仍需真机验证。若需立即停止所有输出，请调用 stop_device。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses that TF-PTPRO's single-channel stop frame and the isolation from the suction channel are unverified on real hardware. That caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral context structured fields can't convey. It is silent on success/failure semantics, but an output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere.
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?
Two short clauses, action first, alternative second, with no filler. The verification caveat is longer than a simple command needs but earns its place by flagging hardware uncertainty.
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, output-schema-backed tool this is nearly complete: it states what it does, flags an unverified hardware behavior, and routes to stop_device for full shutdown. Only the relationship to set_vibration(0) and suction channel side effects is left unstated.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the operation is channel/device-scoped with nothing to configure, and introduces no parameter confusion.
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 opens with a specific action: sending a zero/stop command to the vibration channel ('发送震动通道归零指令'). This clearly ties the verb to the vibration resource. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate vs. calling set_vibration with a zero amplitude, which is the most plausible in-family alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'if you need to immediately stop all outputs, call stop_device.' That gives the agent a real routing rule. It does not address when to prefer this over set_vibration(0) or how it interacts with the suction channel, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.