comet_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool stops a task but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is reversible, what happens to in-progress work, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a control tool with mutation implications.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and condition without any fluff. It's front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (it's a control/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The schema's parameter coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here, but it doesn't compensate for any gaps either. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Stop') and target ('the current agent task'), and it provides a condition ('if it's going off track') that adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like comet_mode or comet_poll, which might also affect agent behavior, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 usage guidelines by specifying 'if it's going off track,' which suggests when to use this tool—when corrective action is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. comet_ask for clarification) or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about optimal scenarios compared to siblings.

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