Stop All Stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the scope (only running stations) and immediacy, but it does not explain side effects such as whether scheduled programs are canceled, whether the action is idempotent, or what response to expect.

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 no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, and every word contributes 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 command with an output schema, the description is largely complete: the agent knows exactly what will happen. The only missing context concerns whether stopping also impacts future scheduled runs, but the phrase 'running stations' limits the scope and the output schema can cover return details.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; the 100% schema coverage is vacuously satisfied. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies, and the description adds nothing needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop'), a clear resource ('all running stations'), and a temporal qualifier ('immediately'), making the action unmistakable. The 'all' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling stop_station, which presumably targets a single station.

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 makes the use case evident: invoke when every currently running station needs to be halted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use stop_station for a single station'), so it stops short of a 5.

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