Kill Session

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, it discloses platform-specific kill semantics (process group SIGKILL vs. Windows job object), that calling on an already-dead session is harmless, and that output remains pollable afterwards. These are behavioral facts the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then safety, then cleanup routing. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description still notes output stays pollable and points to exec_close for cleanup. For a one-parameter destructive tool this covers everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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% and the single session_id parameter is documented as a positive id from exec_start. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (kill) and resource (the session's process tree), with the exact mechanism per platform (POSIX SIGKILL to the process group; Windows job object). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling exec_close by assigning cleanup of resources to that tool.

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?

Gives clear operating context ("Safe on a dead session") and names the companion tool for freeing resources (exec_close), which routes the agent reasonably well. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, e.g. kill vs. close vs. wait ordering.

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