container_kill

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

Beyond destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the default signal is SIGKILL causing immediate termination, that it fails if container is not running, and that when server is containerized it refuses to signal its own container. Also specifies return type as container attrs.

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 with a concise summary, usage guidance, error conditions, and args/returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, return type, and error cases. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description explains both parameters thoroughly: id_or_name is identified as container ID or name (schema only says string), and signal is described with examples and default SIGKILL (schema default null). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it sends a signal to a running container, defaulting to SIGKILL. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool container_stop by contrasting immediate force-kill vs. graceful shutdown, and mentions use cases like sending SIGHUP for config reload.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to force-kill a container ignoring container_stop, or to poke a process without stopping. Recommends container_stop for normal shutdown. Also notes failure conditions (container not running, self-container refusal).

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