cancel_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by stating that completed results are preserved and that social accounts are not modified. It still omits what happens to in-flight/partial results and how errors (unknown or already-finished task_id) are handled.

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?

A single compact sentence with two semicolon-separated clauses, front-loading the action before the side-effect guarantees. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that some required detail is simply absent rather than trimmed.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is stopped and what is untouched, which is adequate. It falls short on parameter meaning and on edge-case behavior (task already complete, invalid task_id, status of a second cancel), which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: task_id is never mentioned, nor is how to obtain it or whether it refers to the same task identifier returned by get_task.

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 uses a specific verb (停止/stop) on a specific resource (本地读取任务/local reading task), which is far more informative than the bare name cancel_task. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as get_task, so the agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. get_task for checking status). The clause about retaining completed results implies a use context but never states the condition under which an agent should call this instead of another tool.

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