cancel_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the side effect of 'killing its whole process tree,' which is critical for an agent to understand the destructive scope. It does not detail return values or error cases, but for a single-purpose cancel tool, this is substantial context.

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 of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Cancel a running task') and followed by the key side effect. Every word earns its place; it is an excellent example of concise specification.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential behavioral context and side effect. It could mention what happens if the task is not running, but for a straightforward cancel operation, the description is largely complete.

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 input schema has one parameter (task_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. While the name 'task_id' is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('a running task'), and adds the detail of 'killing its whole process tree,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_status or start_task. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.

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 description implies the tool is for running tasks only, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to avoid using it. There is no mention of when to use this versus task_status or task_result, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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