cancel_dispatch

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

With no annotations, the description thoroughly explains behaviors: it sends SIGTERM, cancels the asyncio task, and details return values for actionable vs. non-actionable cases. The state distinction between 'cancelled' and 'abandoned' adds valuable context.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide essential details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: action, process, state distinction, and return values. It is fully adequate for agent invocation.

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 0% and the description does not describe the job_id parameter. It only implies its use via context. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's type declaration, leaving a gap for the agent.

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 clearly states it cancels a running job, specifies the mechanism (SIGTERM, asyncio task cancellation), and distinguishes the resulting state as 'cancelled' vs 'abandoned', which differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_schedule.

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 clearly implies when to use: to cancel a user-initiated job. It distinguishes cancellation states but does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for scheduled jobs) or name alternatives like cancel_schedule.

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