interrupt_sage_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—preserving variables—which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention potential side effects, whether it is destructive to the session, or what happens if no computation is running. This is a notable gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (one parameter with full schema coverage, output schema present), the description captures the essential behavior. However, because there are no annotations, a richer description of side effects or session impact would improve completeness. Still, the description is adequate for straightforward usage.

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 description for the 'session' parameter is clear and covers its semantics entirely (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Interrupt') with a clearly defined resource ('a running Sage computation') and a distinctive outcome ('while keeping variables defined so far'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_sage_session or reset_sage_session, which likely discard state.

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 implies the appropriate context: use this tool when you want to halt a computation but retain variables. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'while keeping variables' clause conveys when not to use it (when you don't need variables). Slight deduction for not explicitly stating alternative tools.

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