Interrupt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the actual input sent by target type, the effect scope, and that it reports the outcome. It omits details about permissions, failure behavior, and reversibility.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect. Every phrase contributes useful information without repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the action, target-specific key, scope, and rough return behavior. It could be more explicit about the report format, but it is adequate.

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%, so terminal and timeout are already documented by the schema. The description adds useful key-choice context but does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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, the exact key behavior for agents versus programs, and the scope: it stops the current turn, not the process. This clearly distinguishes it from the process-killing sibling herdr_kill.

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?

It gives clear situational context by explaining esc for agents and ctrl+c for programs, plus an exclusion that it does not stop the process. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as herdr_kill for process termination or herdr_keys for arbitrary key sends.

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