cancel_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is cancellation but does not describe consequences (e.g., irreversibility, state changes) or permissions needed. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. Two sentences plus an Args line with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema. The description covers the core action and how to get the required parameter. It does not explain return values, but the output schema may handle that. Reasonably complete for a cancellation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. It says 'job_id: The job to cancel,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's type declaration. However, it could specify where to obtain the job_id (e.g., from check_research).

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's action ('Cancel a running research task') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_research and check_research by its specific cancellation function.

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 instructs users to use check_research first to obtain the job_id, providing a clear prerequisite and usage flow. This is explicit when-to-use guidance.

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