cancel_subagent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (SIGTERM), which suggests graceful termination, but it doesn't explain side effects like cleanup, reversibility, or behavior when the subagent isn't running. Basic info is present but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the action and key detail (SIGTERM) without fluff.

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 simple process-control tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and how (signal). It lacks explicit mention of return values or error scenarios, but these are less critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds no explicit parameter guidance. However, the single run_id parameter is self-explanatory as an identifier, and its type is a simple string. The low complexity reduces the need for additional semantic exposition.

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 a specific action ('Terminate') and resource ('running subagent'), and the signal (SIGTERM) adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_subagent or list_subagents, 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 implies clear usage context: use when a subagent is running and needs to be stopped. The word 'running' implicitly excludes finished subagents, providing a basic exclusion, though no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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