Interrupt a board program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description earns credit by disclosing the actual mechanism (Ctrl-C), which tells the agent this is a cooperative soft interrupt rather than a power-cycle or flash erase. It still omits what happens on failure (e.g., no program running) and whether any program output is returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and mechanism, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows the target, the mechanism, and the effect. The only meaningful missing piece is post-condition behavior, such as an error when no program is running or confirmation of what the interrupt returns.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage — board_id is documented in the schema as a stable UID from pico_boards_list or a serial device path. The description adds nothing about board_id, which is acceptable at this coverage level but does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific verb (interrupt) and resource (the program currently running on the selected board) and even discloses the mechanism (Ctrl-C). It is clearly distinct from write-heavy siblings like pico_python_run or pico_file_write, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with pico_board_reset or pico_board_bootloader, which are its nearest alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a program is running and you want to stop it without a hard reset. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer pico_board_reset or pico_board_bootloader instead, and no mention of preconditions such as whether a program must actually be running.

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