stop_find_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the core behavior (stop) and the precondition (running), which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether already-detected duplicates are preserved, or what happens if no pass is currently 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the target, and the HTTP endpoint with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 cancellation tool, this is nearly complete: it names the action, the target, and the endpoint. The only gap is the behavior when no duplicate detection pass is running, but the core invocation context is fully specified.

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 accepts no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds enough context by identifying what operation is being stopped, which is all the parameter information an agent needs.

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 specific resource ('running duplicate detection pass'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes this from its sibling find_duplicates, which starts the corresponding operation.

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 'a running duplicate detection pass' clearly states the context in which this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but with zero parameters and a clear counterpart in the sibling list, the intended use is unambiguous.

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