hermes_cancel

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is non-functional and kept only for API parity. This is complete transparency about its behavior (no-operation or failure).

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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information about the tool's status without any extraneous content.

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 stub tool, the description adequately covers its non-functional state. However, it omits any information about the return behavior or the significance of the job_id parameter, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 description provides no explanation of the required 'job_id' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what this parameter represents, which is critical even for a stub tool.

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 explicitly states 'Not implemented. Kept for API parity with hermes-mcp.' This clearly communicates that the tool is a placeholder and does not perform any functional operation.

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 directly advises against functional use by stating it is not implemented. However, it does not suggest alternative tools among siblings (hermes_ask, hermes_check, hermes_reset) for any potential cancellation needs.

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