stop

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: the stop latches and persists until a reset. It still omits what happens to in-flight motions or held objects, whether the call errors if already stopped, and what the response looks like — meaningful gaps for a safety-critical action with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the stateful latch consequence second. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient: the action and its latching persistence are both stated. It falls just short of complete because it never explicitly tells the agent that 'reset' is required before further motion commands, which is the operationally critical consequence of the latch.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics gaps exist.

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?

"Halt all motion immediately" gives a specific verb (halt) and an explicit scope (all motion), which is more precise than the bare name 'stop'. The latch clause also hints at a relationship with the sibling 'reset', though it never names reset as the follow-up step outright.

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 word "immediately" implies this is the emergency/abort path rather than a normal motion command like move_object or pick, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no direct pointer to the 'reset' sibling as the recovery action.

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