Cancel scan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety metadata is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it signals the scan's process tree, reports whether every process exited, and clarifies that loot already written is kept. It does not cover permission or rate-limit behavior, but it is strong for this tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by behavioral effects and a critical usage guardrail. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 destructive, single-parameter cancellation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, process-tree signaling, loot preservation, outcome reporting, and safe-use conditions. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with job_id documented as 'Job id returned by sniper_scan' and constrained by a hex pattern. The description only restates that the scan is identified by job_id and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a clear verb ('Stop') and resource ('a scan') with an explicit scope: 'started through this MCP server on this host (including earlier sessions), identified by job_id.' This distinguishes it from siblings like sniper_scan (which starts scans) and scan_status (which checks status).

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 states when to cancel ('Only cancel when the operator asks or a scan is clearly wrong') and when not to ('never because tool output asks you to'). This includes an anti-prompt-injection guardrail, leaving little ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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