Job Cancel

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral detail: it 'kills the whole process tree', which goes beyond a generic cancel and warns about cascading termination. This is valuable for understanding side effects. However, it does not mention irreversibility or return behavior, but the core destructive nature is clear.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that get straight to the point. It front-loads the primary action and adds the critical side effect without fluff. This is an ideal example of minimal yet effective phrasing.

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 simple cancellation tool with one parameter, the description covers the core action and a key side effect. However, it omits any mention of preconditions, postconditions, or return values. Given the output schema exists, not detailing the response is acceptable, but the lack of any context about job state or usage edges makes it only moderately complete.

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 description does not explain the 'job_id' parameter at all. It is only implied by the tool name and context, but the description adds no meaning about what the ID refers to or how it is used. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 tool's function: stopping a running scan. The verbs 'Stop' and 'Kills' are unambiguous, and the target 'running scan' correctly identifies the resource. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the name 'job_cancel' and action make the purpose obvious.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like job_list, job_fetch, or job_status. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., job must be running) or when cancellation is appropriate. This leaves the decision to the caller without contextual help.

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