interceptor_deactivate_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a destructive, broad-stroke operation: stopping all browser instances, killing spawned processes, and cleaning Docker. This is more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the critical action and scope, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds relevant information about what the tool does and its impact.

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 zero-parameter destructive cleanup tool, the description adequately covers what will be affected and why it should be used. It does not explain what happens after execution (e.g., whether state is recoverable), but that is a minor gap given the explicit emergency-cleanup framing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description's focus on scope and effects is sufficient.

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 verb ('Kill'), a clearly bounded resource ('ALL active interceptors across all types'), and the broader scope ('browser instances, spawned processes, Docker'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interceptor_kill and interceptor_status, which target individual interceptors or query state.

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 identifies an explicit use case: 'Emergency cleanup', which signals the appropriate trigger for invoking this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of an emergency cleanup is clear enough to guide selection.

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