interrupt_kernel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (sending SIGINT to interrupt execution) and the return value. It does not cover edge cases like no active kernel or loss of execution state, but for a zero-parameter signal tool this is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences: mechanism, use case, and return value. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, purpose, and response. It does not explicitly state that a kernel must already be connected, but the operation and related sibling tools make this reasonably clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description correctly avoids describing nonexistent arguments.

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 action: interrupt the current kernel execution by sending SIGINT. This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_code, connect_to_kernel, and kernel_status.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: stopping long-running code or infinite loops. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool.

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