comet_stop

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 mentions that the tool stops the current agent task, implying a destructive action, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens after stopping (e.g., error handling, state changes). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Stop the current agent task') and adds a conditional clause for clarity. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a potentially destructive action with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety or outcomes, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. This meets the bare minimum but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('current agent task'), and it adds a condition ('if it's going off track') that provides useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like comet_ask or comet_mode, which might also affect agent behavior.

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 this tool ('if it's going off track'), which gives some guidance on context. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as whether comet_mode might be a better choice for adjusting behavior instead of stopping.

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