process_kill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Kill' implies destructive action, but it does not disclose that a signal is sent (default SIGTERM per schema), that permissions may be required, that the process termination is irreversible, or what side effects might occur. The minimal description leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary filler.

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 and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention usage context, prerequisites, or consequences, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 100%, with both 'pid' and 'signal' already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Kill a process by PID' uses a specific verb ('kill'), resource ('process'), and method ('by PID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like process_list (which lists processes) and system_exec (which executes commands). The purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as finding the PID via process_list, nor does it distinguish from sending kill commands via system_exec. There is no context about appropriate vs. inappropriate usage.

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