Shell cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the returned status values ('cancellation: accepted, cleanup_complete') and batch behavior. The stray 'Speed: nhanh' line is a non-English artifact that muddies rather than clarifies.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and organized into labeled clauses (Use when / Avoid when / Output / Batch-safe). The 'Speed: nhanh' line is wasted space and inconsistent with the otherwise English text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return fields, so return-value expectations are set. The main remaining gap is the run_id contract, which matters for a single-param tool.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description should compensate. It only names run_id without explaining format, where to obtain it, or whether it must be an active run — this is the minimum needed to be usable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a running shell command') plus the identifier it keys on ('by run_id'). It is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like project_shell_status and project_shell_run.

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?

Explicitly gives the positive trigger ('running too long or its result is no longer needed') and a negative trigger ('Avoid when: the command already finished'), and names the alternative tool project_shell_status to check first.

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