Cancel Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing. It does not disclose whether cancellation is idempotent, what happens to already-completed tasks, whether in-flight work or artifacts are discarded, or what permissions/auth are needed for a destructive operation.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but that brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to speak of for a mutating tool with an undocumented parameter surface.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but everything else is missing. With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition leaves a destructive operation's scope, preconditions, and failures entirely unexplained.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description never mentions either. The required task_id is undocumented (format, where to obtain it, e.g. from submit_task), and the 'server' parameter with its default empty string is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer its 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 names a specific verb (取消/cancel) and resource (任务/task) and narrows scope to tasks that are currently executing, which separates it from submit_task or get_task in a general sense. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage signal is the implicit restriction '执行中的' (executing), which hints that completed or pending tasks are out of scope. There is no statement of when to prefer cancel_task over alternatives like poll_task, no prerequisites, and no guidance on what to do if cancellation fails.

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