kill_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Stop' but does not mention whether the kill is forceful, how processes are matched (exact name vs substring), or that it may terminate multiple processes with the same name. This is a destructive tool, so missing safety details is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Stop') and resource ('processes'), with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but the description lacks return value details and safety caveats that would be expected for a process-killing tool, especially without annotations. It provides enough to understand basic purpose but not enough for complete safe usage.

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?

The schema already describes processName with examples and default behavior (empty scans broad build processes), providing 100% coverage. The description adds only the redundant phrase 'a specific process' and does not contribute new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the tool's function: stopping processes, with a focus on common app build processes (gradle, flutter, node, adb). The verb 'Stop' is specific, and the mention of both broad and specific process targeting distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes or run_shell.

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 implies usage for stopping build processes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like run_shell or list_processes. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any sibling tools, so usage context is only inferred.

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