kill_all_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the blast radius ('all active sessions'). However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the caller's own session or in-flight work is destroyed, or whether any confirmation/auth is required for a mass-kill operation.

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 the destructive verb and scope first and the parent-scoping qualifier in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

This is a destructive, annotation-free, output-schema-free bulk operation, so the description must do more. It omits what is returned (e.g., count of terminated sessions), what happens to partial failures, and whether the action is recoverable — all material for an agent deciding to invoke a kill-all.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'parent_session_id' fully. The description restates the same scoping semantics without adding format, edge cases, or behavior for an invalid parent id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('stop and terminate all active sessions') and clarifies the scoping variant (children of a parent session). It is clearly distinguishable from a single-session tool by the word 'all', though it never names the sibling 'terminate_session' that an agent would otherwise compare against.

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?

'Emergency stop' signals the trigger context, implying this is for urgent/bulk shutdown rather than routine cleanup. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as 'terminate_session' for a single session or 'pause_session' for a reversible stop, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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