Cancel build

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

The description explicitly mentions 'kills the whole process tree', which indicates the destructive nature beyond simply canceling. Since annotations only include openWorldHint: false, the description adds valuable behavioral context, though it could be more detailed about consequences.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and outcome, containing no superfluous words. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is minimal but lacks guidance on using the parameter or interpreting the output. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 one parameter 'jobId' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what jobId is or how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'a running build job', and clarifies the action with 'kills the whole process tree'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like run_build and get_build_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or comparison with sibling tools like get_build_status for checking status before cancellation.

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