dsh_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels. It discloses the side effects: 'kills the child process,' 'in-flight run is reported as cancelled,' 'file edits it already made stay on disk,' and the session becomes non-resumable. This level of detail about runtime and session consequences is exemplary.

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 compact and well-organized, leading with the core action, followed by necessary behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy. The Args section is minimal and to the point.

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 a single parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, side effects, and parameter purpose. It could optionally mention expected return behavior or error handling, but those are likely captured by the output schema and are not critical for this simple cancellation operation.

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 provides zero description for 'agent_id' (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does offer 'agent_id: Agent to stop,' which accurately identifies the parameter's purpose. However, it adds minimal detail beyond the parameter name and does not mention expected format, validation rules, or how to obtain a valid agent_id. It is functional but not enriching.

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 and resource: 'Stop a subagent and release its runtime process.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like dsh_list, dsh_await, or dsh_continue by focusing on termination and process cleanup. The scope is unmistakable.

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 explains the critical usage constraint: 'The harness protocol has no mid-turn cancel, so this kills the child process' and warns that 'Cancelling ends the session: its context cannot be resumed.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the session-ending implication.

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