kill_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that all sessions are terminated, which signals a destructive operation, but it omits key details such as irreversibility, required permissions, error behavior, or whether the tmux server can be restarted.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive tmux-server kill operation with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin; it lacks usage guidance, parameter meaning, and behavioral warnings.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the single required parameter. It mentions 'un host' but never ties that to the 'alias' parameter, leaving the parameter's format and meaning entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: it terminates the tmux server on a host and explicitly kills all sessions. This scope phrase distinguishes it from sibling tools like kill_session and kill_window without requiring the agent to open the schema.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies this is a destructive broad action because it kills all sessions, but it does not name alternatives or state when an agent should choose kill_server instead of kill_session or other tools.

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