tmux_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. 'Kill' implies destructiveness, but the description does not disclose side effects such as cascading termination of child panes/windows, irreversibility, or what happens if the target does not exist. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, with clear bullet-style argument explanations. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 description is minimally viable for a simple kill operation, covering the essential parameters. However, it omits safety-critical context like cascading effects, target format expectations, and error behavior, which would make it more complete for a destructive tool.

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 has no descriptions, so the description compensates well by explaining 'target' as the tmux target and enumerating 'type' as session, window, or pane. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it could elaborate on the target syntax.

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 action ('Kill') and the resource ('tmux session, window, or pane'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_list_*, tmux_select_*, and tmux_create_*. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 intended usage is implied: use when you want to terminate a tmux entity. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., graceful close vs. kill), and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions.

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