kill_scanner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and HTTP endpoint but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, permission requirements, or what happens if no scan 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?

The description is a single sentence that states the action, target, and endpoint with no redundant content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the core invocation details are present. However, the agent is left without information about what a successful kill returns or how errors are surfaced, which keeps it at a minimum viable level.

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% and the only parameter, library_id, is documented as 'Library ID (dbID), from list_libraries'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a clear resource ('a library's file scanner'), and the qualifier 'mid-run' distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_library and get_scanner_status. Even without naming alternatives, an agent can tell exactly what operation this performs.

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 phrase 'mid-run' implies the tool is appropriate when a scanner is currently executing, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like scan_library or get_scanner_status, nor does it mention conditions such as scanner-not-running behavior.

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