Reflect: Cancel Suite Execution

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'Cancel a reflect suite execution,' which is a state-changing operation. This is a direct contradiction. The description also provides no additional behavioral context such as reversibility, effects on ongoing execution, or permission requirements.

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 short and the main action is front-loaded, but the parameter list duplicates the input schema without adding value. It is not bloated, yet it does not use its limited space to convey anything beyond the schema already provides.

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 cancellation operation, important context is missing: whether completed executions can be cancelled, what happens to the underlying test run, and whether any confirmation or side effects should be expected. The tool is simple and has rich sibling context, but the description alone leaves these gaps.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description only repeats the same parameter names and descriptions without adding extra meaning, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Cancel') and the resource ('a reflect suite execution'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool title and does not differentiate from sibling tools like reflect_execute_suite or reflect_get_suite_execution_status beyond the verb itself.

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, what conditions must be met before cancellation, or when an alternative tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer that this is used to stop a running suite execution, but there is no explicit usage context.

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