abort_practice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states it 'aborts immediately' and returns confirmation, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., state of the debugger afterward, whether it is safe to call at any time, or if resources are cleaned up). This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 extremely concise with two short sentences and a 'Returns' line. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (no parameters, single action), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, that it stops execution immediately, and that it returns a confirmation. No additional details are needed for effective use.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (none needed). The description adds value by mentioning the return value 'Confirmation,' which goes beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and this meets it.

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 currently running PRACTICE script' and 'stops the active .cmm script execution immediately,' which succinctly defines the verb ('abort') and the resource ('the running PRACTICE script'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'run_cmm_script' and 'run_practice'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., only valid when a script is running). The usage is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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