cancel_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('cancel') but doesn't explain what cancellation entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it stops processes immediately, what permissions are required, or any side effects like resource cleanup). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions. It meets the basic requirement but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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 input schema has one parameter ('run_id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't add any information about this parameter (e.g., what a 'run_id' is, how to obtain it, or format examples). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies the parameter identifies the run to cancel but doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 ('cancel') and the target ('a running external coding-agent run'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'continue_run' or 'get_run' by focusing on termination rather than continuation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'spawn_run' is about creation, but this isn't stated).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the run must be active), exclusions (e.g., not for completed runs), or comparisons to siblings like 'continue_run' for ongoing runs or 'list_runs' for status checks. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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