crawl_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that pages already saved are kept, which is useful. But it does not mention other behaviors like whether the cancel is immediate, error handling, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Every word earns its place, clearly stating the action and a key behavioral consequence.

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 cancel operation, the description covers the main purpose and the key side effect (saved pages kept). An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor missing details about edge cases (e.g., task not found or already finished) are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has one required parameter, task_id, with no description. The tool description does not explain what task_id is or where to obtain it (e.g., from a crawl call). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 ('Stop a running crawl') on a specific resource ('crawl started by ``crawl``'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawl and crawl_status. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

It implies when to use (for crawls started by `crawl` that are still running) and provides a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as checking status first with crawl_status.

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