shell_kill_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the response indicates whether a process was killed, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or what happens if the job_id is invalid or already completed. This is minimal but 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 compact and well-structured with four labeled parts: Purpose, Constraints, Use, and Example. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important details are front-loaded. No filler or redundancy exists.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema available (per context signals), the description covers the essential workflow: stop by job_id, optionally check output first, and interpret the response. It could mention that job_id originates from shell_exec_background, but overall the description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has one required string parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Requires job_id' and provides an illustrative example ('http8000'), but it does not explain where a valid job_id comes from or its expected format beyond the example. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the specific verb 'Stop' and identifies the resource as 'background shell job' keyed by job_id, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like shell_exec_background and shell_check_job. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 provides actionable guidance: 'Requires job_id' and 'Use shell_check_job first if you need final output.' This clarifies a key workflow dependency. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool, but it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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