interactive_bash_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. It only says '대화형 세션 종료' (end interactive session) but does not explain what happens to the session process, whether termination is graceful, if it is idempotent, or any side effects like losing unsaved state.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive 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?

Given that this is a kill operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-sentence description, the context is critically incomplete. The agent lacks information about the consequences of killing the session, whether the session name must be obtained beforehand, or any recovery options.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (session_name) with a description '종료할 세션 이름' (session name to terminate). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 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 '대화형 세션 종료' clearly indicates the action (terminate) and the resource (interactive session), and it is distinct from sibling tools like interactive_bash_create, interactive_bash_send, and interactive_bash_read. However, it lacks any explicit scope or nuance, such as specifying that it targets a named bash session, which would make it fully unambiguous.

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 like interactive_bash_create or ralph_loop_cancel. The description simply states the action without providing context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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