clamav_kill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does state that the tool kills a scan and that confirmation is required, which is a useful safety signal. However, it does not describe side effects such as whether results are discarded, whether the kill is irReversible, or what happens if the pid is invalid.

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 compact, action-first, and has no wasted words. The arg formatting is clear and quickly scannable, and every sentence adds directly to the caller's understanding.

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 two-parameter kill tool, the description covers the core action, the origin of the pid, and the need for confirmation. It is weakened by the inaccurate confirm requirement and by the lack of any note about consequences or error conditions, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 usefully explains that pid comes from clamav_status, but the confirm description is both minimal and contradictory: the description says Required while the schema lists only pid as required and gives confirm a default of false. This can mislead an agent into sending a confirm value that is not actually mandatory.

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 uses a specific action verb (Kill) and a specific esource (a running ClamAV scan), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clamav_scan and clamav_status. It immediately identifies what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 phrase 'a running ClamAV scan' implies the intended use is to stop a scan that is already in progress, and the note that pid comes from clamav_status gives clear procedural context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended workflow is fairly clear.

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