cancel_deep_scan

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the cancellation mechanism ('withdraws the upstream Internet.nl batch, usually within ten seconds'), non-destructive nature ('Nothing is deleted... keeps its results'), idempotency ('calling this twice is safe'), and error handling ('unknown or expired scanId returns 404'). It also notes 'No auth.' These details add significant value beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 concise, with the primary action front-loaded. Each sentence adds necessary information (behavior, prerequisites, safety, error, use case) without redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, timing, idempotency, error cases, and authentication. It also names related tools (start_deep_scan, get_deep_scan_status), making the context fully self-contained.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter scanId with a clear description. The tool description repeats 'Requires scanId returned by start_deep_scan,' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('an in-progress Internet.nl deep scan'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_deep_scan and get_deep_scan_status. It also names the required input (scanId) and the context of use, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states when to use: 'when the user changes their mind mid-scan or when polling get_deep_scan_status would otherwise time out.' It also clarifies prerequisites (requires scanId from start_deep_scan) and idempotency ('calling this twice is safe'), which guides appropriate usage versus alternatives.

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