cancel_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose real traits: the operation is a request whose completion is not immediate, and cancelling a native plot additionally closes the CODE V plot file already opened. It omits any note on permissions, idempotency, or behavior if no task is running.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the action and its two-state semantics, the second scopes applicability and the side effect. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the surface is small. The description covers applicability and the main side effect; only edge-case behavior (e.g. calling when nothing is running) is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('请求取消当前分析任务' / request cancellation of the current analysis task) and even distinguishes the two resulting states (requested vs. confirmed stopped). It does not name a sibling such as run_analysis or get_status to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It states an explicit applicability condition: only meaningful for asynchronous tasks (spot diagram and native plot export), which implicitly excludes synchronous analyses. No alternative tool is named for the cases where cancellation is not applicable, so it stops short of a 5.

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