Cancelar verificacao

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate destructive behavior. The description adds the context that this ends a running process, which aligns with the annotation. It does not go into detail about consequences (e.g., irreversibility, impact on other jobs), but given the annotation coverage, the additional context is sufficient. No contradiction exists between description and 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 a single, concise sentence in Portuguese that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant or extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, clear annotations), the description is largely complete. It specifies the action, the resource (Autorun job), and the condition (still running). It does not mention potential error scenarios or what happens post-cancel, but these are not critical for a straightforward cancel operation. The description covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100% coverage, with jobId described as 'Id do job a cancelar.' The description does not add any additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra semantic meaning.

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 verb 'Encerra' (ends) and the resource: the Solibri process of an Autorun job that is still running. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like solibri_autorun_start (starting) and solibri_autorun_status (checking status) by specifying 'ainda em execucao' (still running). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 phrase 'ainda em execucao' (still running) provides a clear condition for when to use this tool – only for Autorun jobs that are currently running. This implies it should not be used for completed or not-yet-started jobs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., solibri_autorun_status for checking status or solibri_autorun_start for starting), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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