DeepMiro

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the cancellation is immediate via SIGTERM, preserves partial action logs, and allows post-cancellation data retrieval. Annotations indicate destructive (true) and not read-only (false), which aligns with 'stop' and 'cancel', but the description enriches this with operational details like process handling and data retention, though it doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Stop a running simulation'), followed by supporting details in a logical flow: mechanism, outcome, data preservation, and usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a destructive tool, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's complexity (destructive action with data implications), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and post-cancellation effects. However, there is no output schema, and the description doesn't specify the return value (e.g., success confirmation or error details), leaving a minor gap. Annotations provide safety context, but the description compensates well overall.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the 'simulation_id' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 specific action ('Stop a running simulation') and resource ('simulation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_simulations' or 'simulation_status' by focusing on termination rather than querying. It provides concrete details about the mechanism ('SIGTERMs the subprocess immediately') and outcome ('marks the simulation as stopped'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when a simulation is taking too long, was started by mistake, or is producing bad output you want to abort.' It also distinguishes it from alternatives by noting that partial data remains accessible via 'get_report' or 'simulation_data', clarifying that cancellation doesn't erase all outputs, which helps in decision-making versus other actions.

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