cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool stops 'everything it started', hinting at cascading effects, but does not mention whether this is irreversible, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens to dependent processes. The serious consequence of destruction is implied but not explicitly flagged.

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?

Single sentence, minimal words, no redundancy. Every word is necessary and information-dense.

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, irreversible action on a running resource, the description should explicitly mention return behavior (e.g., success/error feedback), side effects, and safety considerations. With no output schema, the agent is left without important context. The tool's simplicity suggests it could be concise while still warning about consequences.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what a valid job handle looks like, format, or where to obtain it).

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 uses a clear verb ('Stop') and specific resource ('a running job'), and adds scope ('and everything it started'). While it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, its action is distinct enough to infer purpose.

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 alternatives (e.g., when to cancel vs stop via inspect, or cleanup implications). The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., job must be running) or when not to use it.

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