Kill command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Terminate' is consistent with that rather than adding much new behavioral detail. It adds a useful scoping trait ('server-managed') and hints at signal selection via the example, but it does not discuss consequences like force-kill escalation, output loss, or irreversibility beyond what the destructive hint implies.

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?

One sentence plus a compact JSON example: it is front-loaded and has no filler. The example is useful, though it showcases the non-default 'KILL' signal while the schema default is 'TERM', making the example slightly less representative.

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?

Despite having an output schema and destructive annotations, the tool has seven parameters and the description only covers two. It does not explain the wait/kill-wait process, the output-cap limits, or what happens after termination, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only mentions command_id and signal in the example. The six other parameters (notably wait_ms vs. kill_wait_ms, verbosity, preview_bytes, max_output_bytes) are left unexplained, so an agent cannot reason about whether to adjust defaults or how they affect the call.

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 opens with a specific action verb ('Terminate'), names the exact resource ('server-managed command'), and names the identifying parameter ('command_id'). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like exec_command or read_output, and the short JSON example reinforces intent.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., command must be running and managed by the server). The phrase 'server-managed command' conveys only a broad context; no conditions, exclusions, or signal-selection advice are given.

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