取消构建

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

Annotations carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already disclose this is a mutating, destructive operation, and the description aligns with that (no contradiction). The description adds the 'executing' precondition but discloses nothing about side effects, irreversibility, or what happens to a canceled build. With the annotation covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately brief for its limited content, though the brevity partly reflects how little substance it carries.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented required parameters, this description is thin. It lacks parameter explanations, expected effects, and usage preconditions — an agent would struggle to call it correctly without external knowledge of the build system.

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% and the description names neither parameter. projectId and jobId are entirely unexplained — no guidance on what they identify, their format, or where to obtain them. The description makes no attempt to compensate for the schema gap.

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 '取消正在执行的构建任务' (cancel an executing build task) states a specific verb (cancel), a specific resource (build task), and a precondition (currently executing). The verb clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cocos_build_start and cocos_build_status, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that a build must be running), when not to use it, or that cocos_build_status might be a safer first check. The 'executing' condition is implied but never made actionable.

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