run_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'request cancellation' without mentioning consequences, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the run. This is insufficient for a mutating action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and immediately communicates the tool's core purpose.

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?

Despite having three parameters and an output schema, the description is too terse to provide adequate context for correct invocation. It lacks information about accepted action values, how to obtain run_id, and the semantics of project_path, making the tool under-specified for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'action', 'run_id', or 'project_path'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, which are ambiguous (especially 'action').

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 'Request cancellation of one active background run' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_execute and run_status by focusing on cancellation.

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 usage when one wants to cancel an active background run, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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