gemini-cancel

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 explains the side effect precisely: each cancelled call returns an error to its caller, and nothing else is affected. This is strong transparency for a cancel operation, though it doesn't mention reversibility or authorization 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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first states the action and scope, the second clarifies side effects and boundaries. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 no-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the target, the scope, the effect on callers, and the exclusion of everything else. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and predict outcomes.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter details.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('every Gemini CLI run the relay has in flight'), and explicitly names affected sibling tools (gemini-ask, gemini-plan, gemini-brainstorm, gemini-image). This clearly distinguishes it from the read/execute tools in the sibling list.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when there are slow in-flight Gemini CLI runs that need to be aborted 'right now.' It also scopes what is and isn't touched ('Nothing else is touched'), effectively ruling out unintended effects. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but for a cancellation operation the context is sufficient.

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