ateam_test_abort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states abort happens at the next iteration boundary, giving some detail on execution. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., state of the test), reversibility, or safety considerations for repeated calls. For an 'advanced' action, more transparency is needed.

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: one sentence plus a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, front-loading the core action. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 (3 required params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It omits error conditions (e.g., aborting a non-existent or finished job) and consequences, which would help the agent use it safely.

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 100% with minimal descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'The solution ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the parameters are straightforward and the schema already conveys their purpose, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Abort a running skill test') and the resource. It adds detail about when the abort occurs ('at the next iteration boundary') and marks it as advanced. This distinguishes it from siblings like ateam_test_skill (run) and ateam_test_status (status).

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 test but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., need a job ID from a running test) or exclusion criteria. The '(Advanced.)' tag hints at caution but provides no specific guidance.

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