tracking_kill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses SIGKILL delivery, the conditional on the session having a `pid`, and that the session is then removed from the dashboard. It stops short of stating irreversibility, permissions, or the failure mode when no pid exists.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded sentences with the essential action first and the parameter note after. Very little waste, though the Args block is redundant given a single self-evident param.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive behavior is disclosed. Still, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, an agent lacks enough to confidently choose kill over stop/delete.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema coverage, and the description only restates it as 'ID de la session', adding essentially no meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not specify format or source of the ID.

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?

Specific verb+resource: a forced stop that sends SIGKILL to the process and removes the session from the dashboard. It conveys the destructive nature clearly. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close siblings tracking_stop and tracking_delete, which an agent must distinguish.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite tracking_stop and tracking_delete being obvious overlapping siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is the forceful variant.

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