opencode_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Terminates a session and frees all its resources' implies destructive action but doesn't state whether it requires confirmation, whether it's reversible, what happens to an active session when killed, or what the impact is on the agent. No mention of irreversible consequences or side effects.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core action in 8 words. It's appropriately front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant content relative to the tool's obvious purpose.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more. It doesn't describe what happens to the active session by default, whether other resources (logs, checkpoints) are affected, or what return/confirmation the agent should expect. The simplicity of the tool helps, but the destructive nature with zero annotation coverage demands more context.

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 100% and there's only one optional parameter. The schema already documents session_id as 'Session ID (defaults to active session),' and the description doesn't add meaning beyond that. With such high schema coverage and a single self-documenting param, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Terminates') plus a resource ('session') and states the effect ('frees all its resources'). It's specific enough to distinguish from siblings like opencode_interrupt (interrupting vs killing) and opencode_retry, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't clarify the distinction between terminating (kill) vs interrupting (interrupt) vs stopping/cleaning up, which is relevant given the rich sibling set. No exclusions or preferred scenarios stated.

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