interruption_list

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. It conveys only that the result may be empty ('if anything'); it says nothing about whether the call blocks, whether it returns a single pending prompt or a queue, or whether identifiers returned are needed by interruption_respond.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the scope qualifier front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing in it is 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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the return shape (a pending prompt object, an ID usable with interruption_respond, or an empty/absent result). Instead it covers only the existence question, leaving the agent unable to anticipate what it will receive or how to chain into interruption_respond.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax or semantics the description could usefully add.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: the browser's currently pending prompt, qualified by 'if anything' so the agent knows an empty result is possible. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and no sibling (e.g. interruption_respond) is named or contrasted, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives. The obvious pairing with interruption_respond (check first, then respond) is never made explicit, and no prerequisite or boundary condition is given.

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