stop_all_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It specifies the immediate effect and enumerates all affected controls, providing clear scope. It doesn't mention potential side effects like idempotency, but for a simple stop action this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Immediately stop') and lists the affected controls. No wasted words.

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 tool with no inputs, no outputs, and no annotations, the description fully explains what it does and what controls it affects. It is complete within the context of its simplicity.

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 schema, so the description doesn't need to explain inputs. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 stops all movement controls, listing the exact actions (forward, back, left, right, jump, sprint, sneak). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_control, which presumably control individual movements.

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 use case is implied—when you need to halt all movement—but there is no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives. It does not mention that this is preferred over issuing individual stop commands for move_control.

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