interrupt

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses both the immediate effect ('The inferior stops') and the resulting observable event ('a stop notification is emitted'). It does not discuss edge cases like interrupting an already-stopped inferior, but the core behavior is clearly and accurately communicated.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and expected result are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is exemplary conciseness for a simple tool.

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-optional-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides enough core context: what the tool does, when it applies, and what observable effect it produces. The main gap is the unaddressed session_id semantics, but the rest of the tool contract is reasonably complete.

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 is one parameter, session_id, and the input schema provides only type and default information with no description coverage. The tool description never mentions session_id, how it is used, or what omitting it means (e.g., whether the current session is used by default). Because schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 ('interrupt'), a specific target ('the running inferior'), and a memorable semantic reference ('equivalent to Ctrl-C in gdb'). This clearly distinguishes interrupt from siblings like kill_session, quit_gdb, and continue_execution, since interrupting stops rather than terminates or resumes.

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 phrase 'running inferior' explicitly indicates the prerequisite condition for use: the inferior must be running. The Ctrl-C analogy gives clear context about what using this tool is like. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, such as 'use kill_session to stop permanently' or 'use wait_for_stop after interrupting.'

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