analysis.abort

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Abort' implies the tool stops an ongoing analysis, but it doesn't specify side effects (e.g., whether it's irreversible, if partial results are lost, or if it requires specific permissions). The description does not mention any error states or success conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at two words, but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It earns credit for being front-loaded and direct, but it lacks necessary context to be useful. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is missing.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description should be able to fully describe its purpose and usage. However, it falls short by not explaining what session_id represents, error states, or behavioral traits. The sibling tools hint at different workflow stages, but the description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, meaning the description provides no additional meaning for the sole parameter 'session_id'. There are only 1 required parameter, so the burden is low, but the description should explain what session_id refers to (e.g., 'the session identifier of the analysis to abort'). Without this, an agent must infer from the parameter name only, which is insufficient.

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 'Abort analysis' clearly indicates the tool's verb ('Abort') and resource ('analysis'). This is a minimal but sufficient description for a tool that stops an analysis. It doesn't highlight any nuances, but it is not a tautology and is adequate.

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. Siblings like 'analysis.update_and_wait' or 'analysis.set_hold' suggest related operations, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a session must be open, analysis must be running) or when this is appropriate versus using 'task.cancel'. Lack of context leaves the agent to guess usage scenarios.

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