BearQ: Stop Task

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

The description claims the tool cancels a task (a mutation), but annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which suggests no state change. This contradiction undermines transparency. No additional behavioral details are provided (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible, side effects).

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 very concise, with two sentences and a parameter list. No wasted words; all content is relevant.

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 the basics. However, missing behavioral context (e.g., what state the task must be in, timeout behavior) and the annotation contradiction reduce completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the parameter's purpose verbatim. No additional semantic context is added beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action: 'Cancels a running task.' It specifies the verb (cancel) and resource (task), and is distinct from sibling tools like bearq_get_task or bearq_wait_for_task.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bearq_wait_for_task) or prerequisites (e.g., task must be running). The description lacks context for decision-making.

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