interrupt_command_by_id

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions sending Ctrl+C but not side effects, idempotency, or error handling (e.g., if command not found or already finished). Minimal disclosure.

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?

One short sentence, concise but lacks substance. Could include more detail without being verbose, e.g., prerequisite or effect.

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?

Tool is simple (single param, async interrupt). Output schema exists, so return value not needed. However, description omits error scenarios and preconditions. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0% for command_id. Description adds no meaning beyond parameter name; does not explain how to obtain the ID or its format. With only one parameter, description should compensate but fails.

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?

Description has specific verb 'Interrupt' and resource 'running async command', with mechanism 'sending Ctrl+C'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like execute_command_async, get_command_status, and list_running_commands.

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?

Implies use for interrupting a running async command, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. Lacks prerequisites like the command must be running and can be found via list_running_commands.

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