abort_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it aborts the running task but doesn't disclose consequences (are results lost? Is it reversible? Does it need admin privileges?). An abort operation likely has destructive implications that are not surfaced, and there's no annotation to cover the safety profile.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It's efficient and front-loaded. Slight deduction only because it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a potentially destructive operation.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete on the surface. However, the absence of any behavioral context about side effects or prerequisites of an abort operation is a notable gap for a destructive-sounding tool. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0 parameters and no schema to document, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing for the description to explain, making the baseline 4 for parameter semantics appropriate since no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Abort') with a clear resource ('the currently running Agent task'). It clearly states what the tool does. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, though the sibling list shows related task tools (run_agent_task, get_task_result) where this abort action is contextually distinct.

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 states what it does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or what conditions apply. It doesn't specify whether it applies only to tasks started by this system, what happens to partial results, or whether running is a prerequisite. No exclusions or explicit context.

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