stop_process

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 default and force signals and the uppercase naming requirement, but omits side effects (e.g., process termination, unsaved data) and does not clarify whether the process must be started by this tool. Additional disclosure of destructive consequences would improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy, immediately front-loading the tool's purpose and then providing essential usage details. Every word earns its place.

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 process signal tool, the description covers the essentials: action, default behavior, and signal syntax. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., errors, success output) but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. The absence of output schema and annotations is partially mitigated by the clear description.

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 coverage is 50% (only signal has a description). The description adds meaningful detail about default signal and uppercase enforcement, compensating somewhat for the undocumented handle parameter, but handle semantics still remain unclear.

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 clearly states 'Send a signal to a started process' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like start_process and get_process_status by focusing on signal delivery.

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?

It gives context on default behavior (SIGTERM) and a specific usage hint for force killing with KILL, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear enough for common use cases.

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