session_interrupt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does excellently. It discloses the internal mechanism: sends Escape, verifies the session leaves busy state, falls back to Ctrl-C, and suggests subsequent redirection. This is rich behavioral context beyond what structured fields would provide.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, method, and follow-up. No fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main behavior, fallback logic, and next steps. However, the missing parameter semantics reduce completeness, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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% and the only parameter 'name' lacks any explanation. The description never states that 'name' is the session identifier. It mentions 'session_send' but does not clarify the required parameter, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Stop the current turn without killing the session.' This clearly differentiates from session_stop, which likely ends the session, by explicitly contrasting with 'not killing the session.' The verb 'stop' and the scope 'current turn' give precise purpose.

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 practical usage context: it interrupts the current turn, verifies the session leaves the busy state, and falls back to Ctrl-C if needed. It also advises a follow-up action ('Follow up with session_send to redirect'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative siblings, but the intent is clear enough.

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