interrupt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action stops a running task and is like Ctrl+C, implying a non-graceful interruption. However, it does not disclose side effects such as session state, cancellability, or reversibility, leaving significant behavioral information unstated.

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 a single sentence, immediately clear with a memorable analogy. It wastes no words and front-loads the core action.

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. The description explains the action but does not clarify relationship to sibling tools like close_session, nor the effect on the session state. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already provides full coverage with a description for sessionId, including its optionality and default behavior. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics; it refers to 'task' while the parameter is 'sessionId', which may slightly conflate concepts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'interrupt/stop' and identifies the resource as 'currently running Claude Code task', with a helpful analogy to Ctrl+C. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like chat or list_sessions.

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 use when there is a currently running task that needs stopping, reinforced by the Ctrl+C analogy. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but provides clear usage context.

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