cancel_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the version compatibility warning but fails to disclose critical mutation behaviors: whether cancellation preserves partial results, if the operation is reversible, error handling for invalid task IDs, or whether this is a graceful or forceful termination.

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 appropriately brief with no filler. It front-loads the action in the first sentence and uses a standard docstring Args format for the single parameter. The version warning is appropriately placed as a secondary caveat.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists (relieving the description from explaining return values), the description is minimally complete. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations, it lacks important context about side effects or data retention that would aid an agent in making informed invocation decisions.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The Args section provides basic semantics ('Task ID of the scan to cancel'), which minimally compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it does not clarify the dual-type nature (string/integer) or source of the task_id.

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 'Cancel[s] a scan by task_id,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'wait_for_scan_completion' regarding when to cancel versus allowing a scan to finish naturally.

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 notes a version compatibility constraint ('May not be supported by all Burp API versions'), but provides no guidance on when to use cancellation versus alternatives like waiting for completion, nor does it mention prerequisites or data retention implications.

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