remote_swarm_interrupt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the exact action (send SIGINT) and scope (all sessions in a swarm), which is good. However, it does not mention side effects, such as whether sessions remain active after the interrupt, if the swarm persists, or if there are any prerequisites or destructive implications. This would benefit from additional context but is not misleading.

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, complete sentence. It front-loads the action and includes the signal type and scope with zero superfluous words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what, how (Ctrl+C/SIGINT), and to whom (all sessions in a swarm). It could be more complete by addressing what happens to the swarm after the interrupt, but the core behavior is covered, making it adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 includes one parameter, swarmId, with description 'Swarm ID'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description adds that the interrupt targets 'all sessions in a swarm', which clarifies the role of swarmId, but this is minimal additional meaning. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action: 'Send Ctrl+C (SIGINT) to all sessions in a swarm.' It names the specific signal and the resource (swarm sessions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_session_signal (single session) and remote_swarm_exec (command execution). This is a precise, non-tautological statement of 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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: when you want to interrupt all sessions in a swarm. It provides clear context by specifying 'all sessions' and the signal type, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. This earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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