agent_stopStop the current worker session mid-run when it heads down the wrong path, enabling immediate correction via new instructions. Saved progress in ledger/progress.md is not lost.
砍掉 worker 当前这一轮(agentSession.stop)。用在:读到快照发现 worker 正冲向错误路线,想立刻截停并 agent_send 纠正、不想干等它 settle。进展已落盘(ledger/progress.md),停掉不丢持久状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description discloses that stopping does not lose persistent state, which is key for safety. However, lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.
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 sentences in Chinese, front-loading the action and then the use case. No unnecessary words; efficient and to the point.
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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage adequately but misses parameter explanation. Could be slightly more complete.
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 only parameter 'tid' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool definition fails to clarify what tid represents, leaving the agent guessing.
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 aborts the current worker round (agentSession.stop). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_wait_for_stop by specifying immediate intervention use case.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use: when snapshot shows worker heading wrong, need immediate stop to correct via agent_send. Assures persistent state is not lost, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.