Abort Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether aborting is destructive, whether the task can be resumed, what state the task is left in, or whether the call is idempotent on an already-finished task.

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?

It is superficially short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness: a three-character phrase cannot front-load any useful information for an agent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a state-changing task operation the definition leaves the agent without guidance on usage, parameter sourcing, or side effects. Only the presence of the output schema keeps this above the minimum.

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 single parameter task_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning — it does not say where the ID comes from (e.g., list_tasks) or what form it takes. One undocumented parameter with no compensating text.

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?

"中止任务" (abort task) merely restates the tool name and title, adding no scope, target, or distinction from siblings like retry_task or list_tasks. It is a tautology rather than a description of what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks (to find a task to abort) or retry_task (to re-run one). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given.

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