Stop BAS assessment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as effects on assessment data/partial results, but it also does not contradict the 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?

A single, scannable sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate for understanding the core action. However, it lacks any detail on consequences of stopping (e.g., whether results are preserved, if it is reversible), which would be valuable since the annotations only flag destructiveness without explaining what that means here.

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 coverage of parameter descriptions is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'selected module' without explaining the enum values, semantics, or selection guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from raw enum names.

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 'Stop' and resource 'BAS assessment' with a scope 'on the selected module', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch/status. This is a precise and unambiguous 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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is for stopping an assessment that is currently running, providing strong contextual signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'running' condition is sufficient for most cases.

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