Cancel tunnel retry

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it cancels the retry mechanism for failed connections, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the tunnel remains active or if the retry state is reset, beyond what annotations imply.

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 redundant phrases. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the context (failed SSH tunnel connection). Every word adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens after canceling (e.g., return value, effect on the tunnel), nor does it clarify that tunnelName is the target identifier. No prerequisites or side effects are mentioned, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention tunnelName or explain how to identify the tunnel. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but with zero coverage, the agent receives no additional semantic guidance from the description.

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 the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'tunnel retry', and adds context by specifying it cancels the retry mechanism for a failed SSH tunnel connection. This distinguishes it from sibling tunnel tools like connect, disconnect, or update, even without naming them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage (when you want to stop retries), but does not state exclusions or refer to other tunnel tools. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use cancel retry vs. disconnect_ssh_tunnel.

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