cancel_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Send a signal' but doesn't clarify what the signal does (e.g., cancels, terminates, pauses) or any side effects (e.g., whether the command stops immediately, if data is lost, or if it requires specific permissions). For a tool that likely mutates command state, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Send a signal to a running command'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness in tool definitions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (interacting with running commands, likely mutative), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details in the context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly or understand its effects, despite the presence of an output schema.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain what 'command_id' refers to (e.g., an identifier from 'run_command') or what 'signal_value' represents (e.g., numeric signals like SIGINT, string names, or null for default). With two parameters and no compensation in the description, this leaves key semantics unclear.

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 the action ('Send a signal') and target ('to a running command'), which clarifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'signal' means (e.g., cancellation, interruption, or other signals) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'send_stdin', which might also interact with commands. This leaves room for ambiguity in understanding the exact function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a command must be running), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'send_stdin' (which might send input) or 'manage_file' (unrelated). Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in scenarios involving command management.

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