shell_signal

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Send a portable control intent' and does not explain the effects of interrupt, terminate, or kill, nor the impact on the shell/exec, reversibility, or any side effects. The schema enum hints at behavior, but the description itself adds little.

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 appropriately short with no wasted words, but its brevity sacrifices precision. 'Portable control intent' is unclear terminology, so the single sentence does not earn its place as effectively as it could.

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?

With no annotations and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks the operational context needed to safely signal an execution: what each signal does, whether shell_id and exec_id must reference existing handles, and any preconditions. The schema enum provides structure but not the behavioral semantics, and the output schema does not compensate for missing input and context guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides essentially no per-parameter meaning. It does not define shell_id, exec_id, or signal; only 'active execution' loosely suggests exec_id and 'control intent' loosely maps to signal, leaving shell_id entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb ('Send') and resource ('control intent to the active execution'), and the action is distinct from sibling tools like shell_open, shell_exec, shell_read, and shell_close. However, 'portable control intent' is vague jargon and does not explicitly name the signals that the schema enum lists (interrupt, terminate, 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as shell_exec or shell_read, no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer the intended use case from the name and the signal enum.

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