ralph_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('Stops the current Ralph loop and removes all state'), which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't detail potential side effects, error conditions, or confirmation requirements. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence earning its place by adding clear value.

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 complexity (simple cancellation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or confirmation prompts. For a zero-param tool, it covers the essentials well.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist to document.

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 specific action ('Cancel') and target resource ('the active Ralph loop'), distinguishing it from siblings like ralph_loop, ralph_iterate, or ralph_status. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you want to manually stop the loop before completion'), providing clear context and distinguishing it from alternatives like letting the loop complete naturally or using other Ralph tools. It gives direct guidance on the appropriate scenario for invocation.

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