kill_session

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. 'Termina' implies an irreversible destructive mutation, yet the description does not state that the session is destroyed, whether processes inside are killed, whether this requires confirmation, or any side effects. A single line is insufficient for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise - it spends a sentence restating the tool name without conveying anything an agent could not already derive. There is no wasted padding, but there is also no useful content.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is materially incomplete - nothing tells the agent how to identify the target session or what the operation destroys.

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 both required parameters (alias, name) are bare strings with no titles beyond the property names. The description adds no meaning about what alias vs. name refers to or their accepted formats, leaving the agent to guess the host/session addressing scheme.

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 specific verb+resource (terminating a tmux session), which cleanly separates it from siblings like kill_server, kill_window, and detach_clients. It is clear what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those adjacent teardown tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as kill_server for server-wide teardown. The agent must infer context entirely from the name.

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