Emergency shutdown of all PM2 processes. Requires kill switch secret. Logs the event to the audit trail. Use only in emergencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | Kill switch secret for authorization. | |
| source | No | Who activated the kill switch. | |
| command | No | Command to run. Default: pm2 stop all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the tool logs events to the audit trail and requires authorization, providing context beyond annotations. It does not describe potential side effects (e.g., process restart), but for an emergency tool, the disclosure is adequate.
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 composed of four short, direct sentences, each conveying essential information without waste. The purpose is stated first, meeting the front-loading principle. Every sentence earns its place.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, authorization requirement, and audit logging. It could mention reversibility or post-shutdown state, but given the name and emergency context, the current detail is largely sufficient.
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 100% with all parameters described. The description repeats the need for a secret but adds no new meaning for 'source' or 'command'. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description provides minimal extra value.
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 'Emergency shutdown of all PM2 processes', providing a specific verb (shutdown) and resource (PM2 processes). The title 'Emergency Kill Switch' reinforces this. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, ensuring clear differentiation.
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 explicitly says 'Requires kill switch secret' and 'Use only in emergencies', giving clear conditions for use and emphasizing the tool's critical nature. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context (emergency) and requirement make it clear when to invoke this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.
33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.
The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.
