interrupt_command_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (sends Ctrl+C) but fails to disclose effects like whether the command is forcibly terminated, what happens if the command ID is invalid or already finished, or whether the operation is reversible. This lack of edge-case behavior is a significant gap.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main action before explaining the argument. The Args section adds necessary detail without redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool operating on running async commands, the description covers the core purpose and parameter source. However, it lacks information about failure modes or state transitions (e.g., how the command status changes), and with no annotations, it does not fully prepare the agent for exceptional cases. An output schema exists, so return values are not necessary, but behavioral edge cases remain incomplete.

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 schema only defines command_id as a string with no description. The description adds essential context by specifying it is 'The command ID returned by execute_command_async', directly telling the agent where to obtain the value. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb ('Interrupt') with a clear resource ('a running async command') and mechanism ('by sending Ctrl+C'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_input or execute_command_async, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 usage context is implied ('Interrupt a running async command'), and the mention of 'command ID returned by execute_command_async' hints at when it's appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for cancellation, such as sending Ctrl+C directly to a session.

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