terminal_interrupt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the Ctrl+C-first sequence, the Windows pseudo-console limitation, the grace-period cascade termination of children, and that the shell is preserved. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g. no process running) or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by the mechanism paragraph and clean Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds operational information; nothing is restated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the Returns section compensates by listing session_id, sent, running and terminated pids. Combined with the behavioral paragraph and parameter notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the terminal_stop relationship and no-op/error case are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents both parameters: session_id is tied to its producer ('Session returned by terminal_start') and force is explained as skipping the grace period for immediate termination. That is complete for a two-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the command running in a session') and immediately scopes it with 'keeping the shell alive', which is precisely what separates it from terminal_stop. An agent can pick between interrupt and stop without opening either schema.

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 opening clause gives clear context for when to reach for this tool (kill the running command, preserve the interactive shell) and the force arg note indicates the escalation path. It never names terminal_stop explicitly or states what happens when no command is running, so the exclusion is implied rather than spelled out.

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