container_kill

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It discloses the default SIGKILL signal, immediate termination without graceful shutdown, the failure mode when the container is not running, and the limitation when the server runs containerized. The annotations (destructiveHint=true) are reinforced, not contradicted.

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 and concise. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, edge cases, and a clear args breakdown. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague language.

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 tool that sends signals to containers, the description is thorough. It explains the default signal, use cases, differences from container_stop, failure conditions, a special limitation, and the return payload. It is complete even without an output schema, covering all critical aspects an agent needs to know.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics. It explicitly explains both parameters: id_or_name (container id or name) and signal (signal name or number, with examples and default), adding meaning that the schema alone does not provide.

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 the tool's function: sending a signal to a running container, with the default SIGKILL behavior. It explicitly distinguishes it from container_stop by explaining the difference between force-kill and graceful shutdown, making the purpose unambiguous and setting it apart from sibling tools.

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?

Excellent guidance is provided. It explicitly states when to use this tool (force-kill a container ignoring container_stop, or sending a custom signal like SIGHUP for reloads) and when to prefer the alternative container_stop. It also mentions failure conditions (conflict error if not running) and a special case (refuses to signal its own container in containerized environments).

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