kill_background

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral details (SIGTERM then SIGKILL after 5s), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. No unnecessary words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, destructiveHint annotation), the description covers the main behavior but lacks information on error handling, return values, or what happens if the job_id is invalid.

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 has one parameter (job_id) with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on this parameter or its format. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('terminate') and the resource ('running background job'), and explicitly mentions the signal sequence (SIGTERM then SIGKILL after 5s). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_background and run_background.

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 use for forceful termination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling names provides some guidance, but it is not stated.

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