interrupt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool sends Ctrl-C and may escalate to Stop/Restart in Thonny, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether this resets the board or only interrupts the running program.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, adds the mechanism and escalation in a compact parenthetical, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description gives the action, target, and behavior well enough to invoke correctly. The main gap is lack of selection guidance against reset or run, but that is a minor omission for such a simple 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?

There are no parameters planned, so the usual parameter-semantics burden is absent. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to clarify any parameter meaning.

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 states a specific action and resource: stop the program running on the board. It names the concrete mechanism (Ctrl-C) and the escalation path, which clearly identifies this as an execution-interruption tool rather than a generic reset or run command.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like reset, exec, or start. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative selectors; the agent is left to infer the right context from the tool name and minimal description.

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