progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but does not explain the consequences of each—for example, what 'interrupt' or 'skip' actually do, whether they are reversible, or if they have side effects. The tool appears to be a mutation-capable (stop) operation, yet that is not clearly characterized.

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 very short and front-loaded: it states the action and immediately lists the values. No filler. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for each action) but it remains efficient and readable.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what each action returns or does, lacks details about error handling, or expected output. An agent may not know whether 'status' returns a string, a JSON object, or whether 'interrupt' requires any confirmation. This is a notable gap for such a simple tool.

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 schema gives only a name and default for the 'action' parameter. The description compensates by enumerating the allowed values ('status' | 'interrupt' | 'skip'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. This fits the low schema coverage, so the description carries the semantic load effectively.

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 states a clear purpose: checking or stopping the current generation, and enumerates three specific actions. This is distinguishable from siblings like 'generate' or 'models' because it focuses on the lifecycle of generation. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it loses one point.

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 implies it relates to an ongoing generation but does not specify conditions, such as 'use after generate' or 'use to retrieve status.' No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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