stop_simulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that articulations and rigid bodies reset to their spawn pose, and provides a familiar reference (Isaac UI Stop button). It doesn't mention whether non-rigid-body objects (e.g., lights, cameras) are affected, which is a minor gap, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and side effect are front-loaded, and the when-to-use guidance is integrated naturally. Perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema (per context signals), the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. No missing information that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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, so the description needs no parameter explanation. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

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 ('Stop'), resource ('physics simulation'), and the key side effect ('reset to spawn state'). The description clearly distinguishes this from siblings like pause_simulation by emphasizing the reset behavior. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this to return the scene to a clean starting point before another run', giving a clear context. It doesn't name alternatives like pause_simulation, but the reset semantics implicitly differentiate it from a simple pause. The guidance is adequate but could be improved by noting when not to use it (e.g., when you want to preserve current state).

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