pi_kill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is destructive but says nothing about reversibility, what happens to in-flight work or outputs, error behavior for an invalid/already-dead worker, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral context rather than compensating for it.

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 one-parameter tool this is minimally adequate: the action and target are clear and the parameter is fully documented. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, more context on irreversibility and post-conditions would be needed to reach a higher score.

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% and the sole parameter is documented as 'Worker id from pi_spawn', which even ties it to the sibling that produces the id. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Abort') and resource ('a running worker'), plus the concrete effect of stopping its Pi process. It is clearly distinct from pi_spawn and other siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as pi_cleanup.

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 indication of when to use this versus pi_cleanup or pi_status, nor any preconditions (e.g. worker must be running). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the required id.

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