kill_all_processes_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only adds 'use with caution,' which is a vague warning. It does not mention that the tool sends a signal (even though signal has a default), that excludeOwn defaults to true, or that processes are irreversibly terminated. 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and appends a necessary caution. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description is too sparse. It fails to warn about the potential scope of killing multiple processes, the default signal behavior, or the excludeOwn safety mechanism. The one-word caution does not make the description complete enough for an agent to safely select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (signal, pattern, excludeOwn). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating 'matching a pattern,' which is already in the schema. 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?

The description 'Kill all processes matching a pattern' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'kill_process_code' by emphasizing 'all processes' vs. a single one. It is immediately apparent what the tool does.

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 use for pattern-based batch termination but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like kill_process_code or list_processes_code. The cautionary note 'use with caution' hints at discretion but offers no concrete guidance or exclusions.

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