cancel_indexing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that cancellation is not immediate (waits for current file) and that partial results are preserved, providing important context beyond a simple 'cancel.' However, it does not cover potential nuances like idempotency or behavior when no job is running, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences: the first states the core action, and the next two add essential behavioral details. It is front-loaded, avoids redundant phrasing, and every sentence contributes meaning without clutter.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the operation and its immediate consequences (delayed stop, partial results kept). It could have mentioned behavior when no indexing job is running, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap and the description is otherwise complete enough.

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, making parameter explanation unnecessary. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and with no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add any parameter-related information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb 'cancel' and clearly identifies the resource as 'any running indexing job.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_index or pause_watcher by focusing on cancellation of an in-progress job, and the added behavioral details reinforce its specific purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pause_watcher or clear_index. The description implies use when you want to stop indexing, but it does not state exclusions or mention alternative tools, leaving the usage context ambiguous.

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