Interrupt gdb

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the core action (send SIGINT, wait for prompt, return output) but omits details like potential side effects on the debuggee, what 'incremental output' means, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations (none provided).

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 a single sentence of 16 words, front-loading the key action. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating action from output).

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?

Given 3 parameters and a likely output schema (not shown), the description covers the main behavior but omits edge cases like session not found or timeout handling. It is adequate for a straightforward interrupt tool 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 description coverage is low (33%), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the overall action. The description does not explain session_id, timeout, or max_output_bytes semantics, failing to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool sends SIGINT to a GDB session and returns output. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gdb_exec (which executes commands) and gdb_spawn (which starts sessions).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention sibling tools like gdb_exec for command execution instead.

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