cancel_command_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the task will be terminated if still running, but does not cover edge cases like already-completed tasks, invalid IDs, or idempotency. The behavioral info is minimal but accurate.

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 two sentences (one English, one Chinese), front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, while providing the core behavioral guarantee.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and a clear description of the tool's effect, the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. Lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior but is not required for basic use.

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 sole parameter task_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no extra parameter details. Baseline 3 applies as schema carries the burden.

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 cancels a running asynchronous command task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_command_async and get_command_task.

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 when to use it (when a task is running and needs cancellation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No reference to related tools or when not to use it.

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