cancel_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: partial results survive the cancellation. It says nothing about permissions, whether cancellation is immediate or graceful, or the error case when nothing 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 short sentences, action stated first and the consequence of calling it second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the main side-effect question (are results lost). Only the no-active-scan behavior and any return signal are missing.

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 empty schema is consistent with a no-argument action.

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?

"Stop the running scan" gives a specific verb (stop) and resource (scan), which clearly separates it from start_scan and get_scan_status in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of the top score.

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 word "running" implies the tool applies only when a scan is active, but the description never states what happens if no scan is running, whether re-calling is safe, or that start_scan/get_scan_status are the counterparts. Usage is only implied.

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