emergency_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool latches and disables, which is some behavioral information, but it does not disclose consequences such as whether the action is reversible, whether it affects other devices, whether confirmation is required, or what happens after the stop. For a safety-critical emergency stop tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the imperative action ('Latch the emergency stop immediately') before the affected resource. Every word contributes, making it highly economical and scannable.

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 high-stakes emergency stop tool with no annotations and only minimal parameter documentation, the description is too terse. It omits the relationship between device_id and the arm, any safety disclaimers, and when this tool should be invoked relative to the sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the missing operational and selection context leaves the description 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 description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, device_id, has no description beyond its type and title. The description mentions 'the selected arm' but never explicitly maps device_id to an arm or explains how to obtain a valid device_id. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Latch the emergency stop') and a specific resource ('the selected arm'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like read_device, write_device, and plan_two_arm_handoff. The word 'emergency' conveys urgency and scope. Even without title or annotations, an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. It does not explain how emergency_stop differs from write_device in terms of use cases, nor does it reference discover_devices for resolving device_id. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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