process_kill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement but fails to mention the potential destructive consequences (e.g., KILL signal terminates the process), the default signal (TERM), or irreversibility. For a process mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, with no redundant wording. It states the action and a key prerequisite without fluff.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as default signal behavior, whether the operation is reversible, and what the return value indicates. Without an output schema, these details would help complete the picture.

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 documents both pid and signal with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, only confirming the action of sending a signal. It does not explain signal name semantics or what pid represents beyond the schema.

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 'Send a signal to a process' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like process_list and process_info. The permission note adds context without ambiguity.

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 requirement for process.kill permission implies when the tool is available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied from the name and description.

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