Kill Background Process

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

Beyond annotations indicating destructiveness, the description adds that the process must be tracked and requires user approval. This provides behavioral context, though it could clarify what happens if the PID is invalid or not tracked.

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 plus an Args list, both concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary text; every part adds value.

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 single parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from mentioning the tool's return value or confirmation behavior.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying the PID must be one tracked by this server and references list_processes. This provides useful context beyond the schema's basic description.

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 verb 'Terminate', the resource 'background process', and specifies it must be one started with run_command_background. It distinguishes from sibling tools by connecting to the background process management context.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to terminate processes started by run_command_background, and it requires interactive approval. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives for other process types.

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