jumpserver_interrupt

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the interrupt is out-of-band and does NOT wait for the current operation to finish, and that afterwards the connector re-probes the shell and reports ASSET_SHELL or UNKNOWN. That post-condition and result-state information is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and is not derivable from destructiveHint/readOnlyHint.

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-loads the action and urgency ('NOW'), then adds the out-of-band caveat, the post-condition, and the sibling routing in three tight sentences. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return semantics and does so by naming the two possible resulting states. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter syntax is needed or missing.

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 action (send Ctrl+C) against a specific resource (the remote shell) with the intent spelled out (interrupt whatever is running), and gives concrete examples of the target situation (stuck command, endless tail, long find). It also names a sibling, jumpserver_close, and explains the distinction, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('instead of jumpserver_close when you only want to stop the remote job and keep the session'), which is a direct when/when-not rule against the most likely alternative. The contrast with closing the session is unambiguous.

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