cancel_pi_command

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

The description discloses the force-termination timeout (2s) and the abort signal, adding behavioral context beyond a simple 'cancel'. However, it does not specify side effects, error conditions (e.g., no running command), or required permissions, which would improve transparency.

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 with two sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and no unnecessary words are included. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core action and timeout behavior, but for a tool with no output schema, it could mention what happens after cancellation (e.g., response, error cases). It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 only parameter, sessionId, is fully described in the schema ('The ID of the session whose command to cancel.'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('abort') and the resource ('currently running command in a session'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'send_pi_command' and 'terminate_pi_session', which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a running command, or when cancellation is appropriate.

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