tasks_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('取消任务' - Cancel tasks) without explaining what cancellation entails (e.g., whether tasks are interrupted immediately, if they can be resumed, what happens to partial results, permission requirements, or system impact). This is inadequate for a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 reasonably concise with a clear structure (purpose, parameters, examples). However, the Chinese-only content may limit accessibility in multilingual contexts, and the parameter explanations are overly brief. While not verbose, the description under-specifies critical information for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.

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 task cancellation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what tasks are, what cancellation means operationally, error conditions, or return values. The sibling tools include 'tasks_get' and 'tasks_list', suggesting this is part of a task management system, but no integration context is provided.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameters with brief Chinese labels but adds minimal semantic value - it doesn't explain what '动作过滤' (action filtering) or '节点过滤' (node filtering) mean, how patterns work, or the relationships between parameters. The examples show basic usage but lack explanatory context. This provides some compensation but falls short of fully addressing the coverage gap.

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 '取消任务' (Cancel tasks) restates the tool name 'tasks_cancel' in Chinese, making it essentially tautological. It doesn't specify what type of tasks are being canceled (Elasticsearch tasks, background jobs, etc.) or provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'tasks_get' or 'tasks_list' beyond the obvious action of cancellation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task status), consequences of cancellation, or relationships with other task-related tools in the sibling list. The examples show parameter usage but don't explain context or decision criteria.

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