kernel_interrupt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool stops execution, which is a behavioral trait not fully captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose more nuanced behaviors like the effect on kernel state or whether interruptions can be stacked.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that correctly front-load the purpose and usage. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has one required parameter with no explanation and no output schema, the description should clarify the parameter. The current description leaves ambiguity about what 'name' refers to, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 only parameter, 'name', has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what 'name' refers to (e.g., kernel name, cell name). This is a critical omission.

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 that the tool sends an interrupt signal to the running kernel to stop long-running or infinite-loop cell execution. The verb 'send' and resource 'interrupt signal' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like kernel_restart or kernel_start.

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 description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'to stop a long-running or infinite-loop cell execution.' This provides clear guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives (e.g., kernel_restart for a full restart), which would strengthen the score.

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