安全停止任务

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and excels: it reveals that the stop request is persisted, occurs at page boundaries, triggers a cross-platform process-tree cleanup if OCR becomes unresponsive, and guarantees the MCP will not be blocked. These are substantial behavioral details beyond a simple cancel 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 description is two sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable technical context about persistence and cleanup, though it is dense; overall, it is efficient and earns its length.

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?

The description covers graceful stopping, persistence, fallback cleanup, and non-blocking behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it omits edge cases like idempotency or resumability (relevant given sibling resume_job) and does not state prerequisites such as job_dir validity, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the required 'job_dir' or optional 'reason' parameters. The description mentions '请求' and '用户请求' but fails to map these to the schema, leaving the agent without any guidance on parameter meanings or formats.

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 '安全停止' and targets a clear resource, '正在运行的书籍任务', with a precise scope, '当前页边界'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_batch, which stops batches rather than individual jobs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for stopping a running book task, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like stop_batch or resume_job, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. Usage context is only implied, not clearly articulated.

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