stata_break

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and states the key side effect (interrupted command rc=1) and the post-condition (engine remains alive and usable). It does not disclose what happens when no command is running, which is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, then states the condition and consequences. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, and the description covers the core operation. However, it does not mention the return behavior of the tool or the no-running-command case, leaving those details undocumented.

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 100% and the schema already documents session_id's meaning and default ('default'). The description only repeats '指定会话' without adding extra semantic value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('打断'/'interrupt') and a concrete resource ('指定会话正在运行的 Stata 命令'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like stata_run or stata_get_results.

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 phrase '若有' indicates the tool should be used when a Stata command is currently running in a session, giving clear contextual guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous.

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