Diagnostic Stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does flag that this is a write operation ('写操作'), which is useful, but it says nothing about side effects — whether partial export files are discarded, whether the stop is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or how the state changes.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is terse enough that nothing is wasted, though the terseness coincides with the content gaps scored elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and five parameters (four of them connection/session settings), the description is too thin; it leaves the agent to infer the effect of stopping a task and how the connection parameters interact with the server. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be covered, but the behavioral gaps remain.

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 100%: host, port, scheme, profile and task_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable but not additive, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource pair, '停止诊断日志导出任务' (stop diagnostic log export task), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling diagnostic_export. It does not explicitly name that sibling or scope the operation further, but the purpose is fully legible.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus diagnostic_export or how to obtain a task_id, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only inferable from the verb '停止', which matches the calibration case of an update tool with no when-to-use statement.

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