取消 Gemini 子代理任务

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, matching the terminate semantics. The description adds useful context by scoping cancellation to tasks 'still running in the current MCP process', which clarifies that tasks in other processes or already-completed tasks are not affected. It does not describe side effects like partial work loss, but the destructive annotation covers the core safety signal.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates scope, target resource, and the action.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool, the description, combined with destructiveHint and the 'current MCP process' scoping, is mostly complete. The main gap is not stating that job_id should come from a starting/delegating tool, but this is inferable from siblings and not critical for invoking the tool.

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 never mentions job_id or explains where it comes from. The parameter name and UUID format are self-explanatory to some degree, so the tool is callable, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 '终止' (terminate) with a clear resource: Gemini/Teamwork background tasks still running in the current MCP process. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_gemini_task and get_gemini_task, which have different actions.

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 phrase '仍在运行' implies the tool should be used for running tasks, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_gemini_task for finding the job_id, and no note about what to do if the task is already finished.

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