job_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. Disclosing SIGTERM then SIGKILL for local jobs is genuinely useful behavioral context, but there is no mention of permissions, remote-job behavior, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the true final state is.

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 zero filler that earns every clause by including the signal escalation detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core destructive behavior and signal sequence. It stops short of permissions, idempotency, and remote-job handling, leaving minor gaps.

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% for the single job_id parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does not say what a job ID looks like, where to obtain one, or what format it takes. Baseline 4 is overridden by the documented coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Terminate') and resource ('running background job'), and gives the signal sequence, making it clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like job_status or job_output.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and 'running background job' scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., job_status for inspection before killing).

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