interceptor_deactivate_all

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive side effects: stops browser instances, kills spawned processes, removes ADB tunnels, detaches Frida, cleans Docker. This is comprehensive and beyond minimal requirements.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with a clear action followed by a list of effects. Front-loaded with the core function. No wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, scope, and specific effects. Nothing missing for effective agent invocation.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds significant meaning by clarifying the scope ('ALL'). It effectively replaces any need for parameter documentation.

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 uses specific verb 'Kill' and resource 'ALL active interceptors across all types', and lists concrete actions (stops browsers, kills processes, removes ADB tunnels, detaches Frida, cleans Docker). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like interceptor_android_deactivate or interceptor_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?

The description labels it as 'Emergency cleanup', implying use when you need to stop everything immediately. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the urgency context guides appropriate usage.

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