cancel_top_cook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It says 'Cancel active cooking' but does not disclose that this stops all cooking on the network, whether it clears the work item states, or how it affects the PDG graph. This opacity is a gap for a cancellation action that can have significant side effects.

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 short and direct, with two sentences and a simple Args list. It is not verbose or padded. However, it is under-specified for the complexity of the action, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Still, it earns a 4 for front-loading the core statement.

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 cancellation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing key context: prerequisites, side effects (e.g., does it delete cooked results?), and how to verify cancellation. Given the complexity of PDG cooking and the existence of pause_top_cook, the definition is incomplete for an agent to use it safely.

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%, so the description must explain node_path. It merely restates 'TOP node or TOPnet path' without adding context like whether it accepts a string that can be a root path or how to specify a node inside a network. This is minimal and does not compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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 specific action (cancel active cooking) on a TOP network, but it is terse and lacks detail about what this means in practice. It distinguishes from siblings like pause_top_cook and cook_top_node, but does not explicitly differentiate behavior. A 3 reflects the clear verb and resource without deeper explanation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pause_top_cook or dirty_work_items. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., node must be cooking) or typical use cases. The only hint is the name and description, which imply it cancels cooking, but an agent cannot determine when to prefer it over pause_top_cook.

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