comet_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool stops tasks conditionally, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what happens to task state/data, permissions required, or side effects. For a potentially disruptive 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Stop the current agent task') and adds a conditional clause for context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 potential complexity (stopping agent tasks conditionally), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'off track' means, how stopping is implemented, or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 ('Stop') and target ('the current agent task'), with a specific condition ('if it's going off track'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on task termination rather than communication (comet_ask), connection (comet_connect), mode changes (comet_mode), polling (comet_poll), or screenshots (comet_screenshot). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'off track' or the exact mechanism of stopping.

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 usage when the agent task is 'going off track', providing some contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., whether to use comet_ask for clarification first), prerequisites, or clear exclusions (e.g., when not to stop). The guidance is situational but not comprehensive.

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