cancel_synthesis_tool

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 goes beyond a simple 'cancel' by explaining that it sets a cancellation flag that the CEGIS engine checks between iterations, informing the agent that cancellation is not necessarily immediate. It does not detail return values or failure handling, but the key side-effect is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and the asynchronous cancellation behavior. Although it does not mention return values or error conditions, the low complexity and available sibling tools (e.g., synthesis_status_tool) provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, yet the description does not explain the synthesisId parameter or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic value about how the ID relates to the cancellation process.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('running synthesis'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like synthesize_patch_tool or synthesis_status_tool. The phrase 'running synthesis' precisely scopes the operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a synthesis is currently running and needs to be stopped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the 'running' precondition and the cancellation mechanism give clear context.

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