kernel_interrupt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description discloses the mechanism (SIGINT), the safety property (doesn't lose kernel state), and the intent (cancel long-running execution). It does not disclose return values or side effects, but the output schema exists and the zero-parameter simple behavior is fairly well covered. With no annotations, a 3 is appropriate given the moderate context provided.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second sentence explains when and why to use it. Every word earns its place, and the critical benefit (preserving kernel state) is front-loaded in the usage sentence.

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?

This is a conceptually simple tool (send SIGINT with no parameters) and the description covers the essential elements: what it does, when to use it, and the key behavioral guarantee. Combined with the output schema and zero-parameter simplicity, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention edge cases (e.g., what if no long-running execution exists), but for a simple interrupt tool this is adequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly adds behavioral context around what the tool does even though there's nothing to parameterize.

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 verb+resource: 'Interrupt the running kernel (send SIGINT)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings since kernel_restart, kernel_stop, and kernel_execute are all clearly different actions, and the interrupt action is unique. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, though the parenthetical SIGINT detail adds helpful specificity.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to cancel a long-running execution without losing kernel state.' This explicitly states when to use the tool and the key benefit (preserving kernel state), which distinguishes it from kernel_stop (which would presumably destroy state) and kernel_restart. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the usage guidance is reasonably clear.

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