interrupt_command_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the method (Ctrl+C) and that the command must be running, but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This 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 extremely concise with two clear sentences: one for the tool purpose and one for the parameter. No wasted language, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 interrupt tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential aspects. Although an output schema exists, the description does not clarify what is returned (e.g., success status), but this is a minor omission given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 sole parameter 'command_id' is described as 'The command ID returned by execute_command_async', which adds valuable context beyond the schema's bare type and requirement. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates well.

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') and the resource ('a running async command'), with a specific mechanism ('sending Ctrl+C'). This differentiates it effectively from related sibling tools like execute_command or list_running_commands.

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 implies usage for interfering with asynchronous commands but does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or explicitly mention alternatives. Given sibling tools like get_command_status or list_running_commands, the lack of context for choosing among them is a gap.

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