sequence_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys side effects: immediate stop, telescope left in place, no stowing, and the potential unsafe position from interrupting a mid-slew teardown. It also advises confirmation via sequence_get_state. This fully covers the relevant behavior.

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 longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence earns its place: primary behavior first, then use cases, exclusions, a safety warning, and a verification step. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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, safety-relevant control tool, the description covers all key operational context: what happens, when to call it, when not to call it, what to do instead, and how to verify the outcome. An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. Nothing material is missing.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately does not invent unnecessary parameter details.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Stops the currently running NINA sequence immediately.' It clarifies the scope by explicitly noting the scope is not stowed and by distinguishing itself from sequence_execute_teardown, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (urgent halt, stuck/looping sequence, unwanted sequence) and when not to use it (before the teardown/standby entry tools, during an in-progress teardown unless safety requires). It also names the alternative sequence_execute_teardown for parking/homing and the follow-up sequence_get_state. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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