kill_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'force-kill' implying SIGKILL, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., potential data loss, impact on running processes, or whether the container is merely stopped or removed). The token requirement is mentioned but not explained (how to obtain or use it).

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the action but omits context that would improve usability. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool's destructive nature, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or how the confirmation token works. The sibling tools list includes many container operations, but no guidance on selecting this one over others.

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%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id). The mention of 'confirmation token' vaguely relates to agent_token but is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action as force-killing a container, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_container (graceful) and remove_container (destructive removal) by implying a forceful stop, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 mentions the requirement for a confirmation token, providing a prerequisite, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_container. There is no explicit when-not or mention of alternative tools, leaving the decision unclear.

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