opencode_interrupt

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 mentions the return value (output buffer and reason) which helps, but doesn't disclose side effects like whether the task is truly terminated, whether unsaved work is lost, whether it's reversible, or whether subsequent retry is possible. For an interrupt action, these behavioral details matter.

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 conveys the action, the mechanism (Ctrl+C), and the return value. Zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded and complete for what it claims.

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 an interrupt action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't state preconditions (e.g., must have an active task), post-conditions (silent vs. verbose interruption, whether process restarts), or edge cases (what happens with no task running). Sibling tools like opencode_retry and opencode_kill suggest a lifecycle this tool participates in, but that context is absent.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The 'reason' parameter's purpose (why interrupting) is clear. However, the description adds nothing beyond the schema — no guidance on what makes a good reason or how session_id should be formatted/selected when multiple sessions exist.

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 (sends Ctrl+C / interrupt), the resource (the task), and the effect (interrupts the task). It also specifies the return behavior (final output buffer and reason). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like opencode_kill or opencode_send, the 'interrupt' action is reasonably distinct.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include opencode_send, opencode_kill, and opencode_retry, which could overlap conceptually with interrupting a task, but the description doesn't clarify when interrupt is preferred or when kill/retry would be more appropriate.

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