agent_interrupt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: the session is not killed, the conversation is preserved, and the escalation sequence (Escape, then Ctrl-C). It omits what happens to in-flight output and failure behavior for an unknown session, but the core safety profile is well covered.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, followed by the preservation guarantee and the routing alternative. No filler.

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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description supplies the mechanism, safety guarantee, and sibling routing. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid session, already-idle agent), which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'hard' boolean is documented in the schema and the description adds sequencing context ('then Ctrl-C if asked'). The required 'session' parameter has no description in either place, so the agent must infer its format (session name/id). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 verb (stop/interrupt) and resource (a tmux-hosted agent mid-generation) with the exact mechanism (Escape, then Ctrl-C). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_stop by declaring the non-destructive nature of the operation.

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 names the alternative ('Use agent_stop to end the session instead') and the condition that selects it. Implicitly covers when-not (when you want to end the session, use agent_stop), leaving nothing to inference.

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