Emergency stop

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description's added value comes from 'bypassing all queues' and 'Cannot be undone by pending commands.' These clarify real-world execution behavior and are not redundant with the annotation metadata.

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 two short sentences with no filler. Critical information—scope, immediacy, queue behavior, and non-undoability—is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 global stop action, the description covers scope, behavior, and an important consequence, while annotations cover safety traits like destructiveness and idempotence. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but with no output schema and this simplicity, that is a minor gap.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter explanation is needed or possible.

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 verb ('stop') and a precise resource ('every channel and waveform task on every paired app and device'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling dglab_stop_channel by its global scope. There is no ambiguity about 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 phrase 'Immediately stop every channel and waveform task on every paired app and device' and 'bypassing all queues' clearly conveys the emergency, global-use context. It does not explicitly name dglab_stop_channel as the alternative for stopping a single channel, but the scope contrast is strong enough to guide an agent.

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