send_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical escalation behavior ('SIGTERM → wait 5s → SIGKILL') and enumerates valid signals, which goes beyond the bare parameter names. It could mention error handling or permission requirements, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the core function, plus two short sentences detailing the SIGTERM escalation and valid signals. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: the target (process group), the signal options, and the special SIGTERM handling. It does not discuss return values (handled by output schema) or potential errors, but that is acceptable given the low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'pid' refers to a process group (though the parameter name is 'pid'), and it lists the allowed values for 'sig'. The signal list adds meaningful semantics that the schema lacks.

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 'Send a POSIX signal to a process group' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_input' (which sends input) and 'status' (which reports status), making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for sending signals to process groups and lists valid signals, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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