interrupt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect ('CDB will stop the target and display a new prompt') and the post-interrupt step. It lacks detail on error cases or behavior when the target is not running, but covers the core action well.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage trigger, and follow-up. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the main workflow (when to interrupt, what happens, what to do next). It could mention error cases (e.g., interrupting when nothing is running), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an informed agent.

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 input schema has only one optional parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from sibling tools or the schema defaults. This is a clear gap.

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's function: 'Interrupt the running debug target (send Ctrl+Break).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like execute and get_output by focusing on stopping the target.

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 provides explicit contextual guidance: 'Used after execute('g') returns pending, to stop the target.' It also advises the follow-up action to get_output(). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for similar scenarios.

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