kill_process_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic kill operation without mentioning the signal mechanism, default SIGTERM, potential side effects, or prerequisites. The description adds little beyond what the name already conveys.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action and selection method. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, but the description is minimal and does not mention behavioral nuances like default signal behavior or error handling. It lacks a note about when to use this versus kill_all_processes, making it slightly undercomplete for agent decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description need not explain each parameter. It does reinforce the dual selection methods (PID or name) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as signal behavior or parameter priority. 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 a process by PID or name' clearly states the tool's action (kill) and resource (process), with a specific selection method. It implicitly distinguishes this from kill_all_processes by specifying a single process, and the singular phrasing makes the scope apparent.

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 when you need to terminate a specific process identified by PID or name. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention the sibling tool kill_all_processes for killing all processes, leaving the usage context under-specified.

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