container_kill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: the default signal, lack of graceful shutdown, conflict error on non-running containers, refusal to signal the server's own container, and the return value (inspect payload). This goes well beyond what annotations provide, with no contradictions.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, edge cases, and finally args and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose; it is detailed without being verbose. The key facts are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the action, the default signal, edge cases, parameter semantics, and the return format. Combined with the annotations, it is fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain 'signal' with examples and default, which is critical. However, 'id_or_name' is not explicitly described, though its name makes its meaning obvious. The description adds value for the signal parameter but could explicitly mention that id_or_name accepts container ID or name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a signal to a running container', clearly differentiating it from container_stop by stating the default SIGKILL and immediate termination. It names the sibling tool container_stop and explains when each is appropriate, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('force-kill a container that ignores container_stop') and when not to ('For a normal shutdown prefer container_stop'), and even shows a secondary use case (SIGHUP reload). It also states failure conditions (not running, own container), giving complete guidance for selection.

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