kill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, and it fails to do so. 'Terminate a session' reveals the basic action but says nothing about whether the termination is graceful or forceful, whether it affects child processes, whether it requires confirmation, or what happens to the session state. This is essentially a synonym for the tool name and adds no behavioral detail.

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 short sentence with no fluff or repetitive content. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning. The structure is appropriately minimal for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks essential context such as return behavior, error handling, or side effects. There is no output schema to fill in the gaps, and the description does not address what happens when the session is successfully terminated or if the name is invalid. An agent would have to infer or experiment to understand the full behavior.

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%, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Session name (as provided to spawn)'. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantic load.

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 'Terminate a session' uses a specific verb and a clear resource, which plainly identifies the tool's core action. It distinguishes itself from the siblings (spawn, read, send, list) by indicating destruction rather than creation, inspection, or communication. It is concise and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a session should be ended gracefully or what to check before killing. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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