Stop Simulation

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description itself adds little beyond restating the action ('Stop') and the target state ('running'). No extra context is provided about side effects or resource release. This meets the baseline for annotation-backed tools.

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 that wastes no words. Every word ('Stop', 'a running simulation') contributes to the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the simple parameter set (one ID), the presence of annotations for idempotency and destructiveness, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It is brief but adequate; it could mention post-condition behavior (e.g., simulation becomes stopped) but is not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'simulation_id' already described as 'The simulation ID to stop'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 'Stop a running simulation.' uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('a running simulation'), clearly distinguishing it from start/create/simulation tools. It adds scope ('running') that differentiates it from merely referencing simulation management.

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 implies usage context: the simulation must be running to stop it. This is a clear condition, and the tool's placement among sibling tools makes its purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though none are needed given the straightforward action.

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