cancel_task

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: CLI agent terminates the process tree, GUI agent attempts to click stop and waits with a bounded timeout, queued tasks are simply removed, unconfirmed stops are surfaced in results, and terminal-state calls clear the guiStopUnconfirmed flag without changing final state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers CLI behavior, GUI behavior, queued tasks, and the terminal-state confirmation role without repetition or filler.

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 tool with this many behavioral branches, the description is unusually complete: it covers CLI vs GUI handling, queued removal, timeout expectations, unconfirmed-stop reporting, and the confirmation semantics for terminal GUI tasks. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance, and there is no output schema, but the behavior itself is sufficiently specified.

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%, so the description needed to compensate, but it never explains taskId or reason. taskId is somewhat inferable from context, but reason's purpose is entirely undocumented in both the description and the schema, leaving the agent to guess whether and how it affects cancellation.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, “取消运行中任务,” and then disambiguates by execution mode (CLI vs GUI), queue state, and terminal-state confirmation. This clearly separates it from siblings such as run_task, continue_task, query_task, and rework_task.

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 enumerates when to call the tool: for running CLI/GUI tasks, for queued tasks, and as the manual confirmation entry for terminal GUI tasks with guiStopUnconfirmed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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