terminal_interrupt

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

Annotations are all false, offering no positive safety hints. The description adds the useful distinction that it sends TTY-level Ctrl+C rather than a signal to the PID, and notes the lease_id requirement. It does not disclose error behaviors, side effects, or idempotency details, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and includes a non-obvious caveat. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers the core action and prerequisite. However, given the tool belongs to a terminal family and has three parameters with no schema descriptions, more context about when to use it (e.g., for a running process) and how pane selection works would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions 'pane' (likely mapping to pane_id) and states the lease_id requirement, which is already in the schema. It offers no explanation for alias or the relationship between alias and pane_id, leaving significant gaps.

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 purpose: 'Send TTY Ctrl+C to the pane' — a specific verb, resource, and action. It also distinguishes itself from an alternative ('not kill -INT to pane_pid'), which aligns with the sibling context.

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 gives a clear context (sending Ctrl+C to the pane) and an explicit exclusion ('not kill -INT to pane_pid'), implying when to use it versus process-level kill. However, it does not name alternative tools like terminal_key or terminal_write, so it falls short of thorough guidance.

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