stop_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive action (stopping a job) but doesn't clarify effects like whether the job can be resumed, if machine state is preserved, or what happens to the current position. The input schema hints at 'graceful' vs. 'force' behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that performs a potentially destructive action (stopping a job) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral consequences, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'current job', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'force' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.

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 'Stop the current job' clearly states the action (stop) and resource (current job), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pause_job' or 'emergency_stop', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pause_job', 'resume_job', or 'emergency_stop'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires a job to be running) or context for choosing between graceful vs. forced stops.

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