stop_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states idempotency ('可重复调用'), which is real behavioral information, but omits whether an active connection is required and what happens if the device is already stopped or disconnected.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the idempotency caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 action with an output schema present, the description covers the action and idempotency, which is most of what an agent needs. The only gap is connection/prerequisite state, which is minor at this complexity.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: zeroing all supported outputs on the current device. This contrasts implicitly with the per-output siblings (set_vibration, set_linear, set_rotary), though it never names them, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by the action itself (stop all outputs on the current device), and the idempotency note gives operational context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus disconnect_device or the individual set_* tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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