colab_process_signal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose key safety behavior: never signaling a replacement and falling back to status inspection for exited/lost processes. However, it does not mention the destructive nature of KILL, process-group signaling, or ownership verification beyond the word 'owned.' The schema adds some of this, but the description could better disclose error handling and side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, 17 words, with the main action front-loaded ('Signal an owned process'). The second sentence adds a critical conditional and warning without redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful information, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 destructive/process-control tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: ownership, the no-replacement safety rule, and the exit/lost fallback. Combined with the comprehensive schema, this is sufficient for safe selection. However, it does not explicitly mention session constraints or process-group behavior, which are left to the schema, so it is not fully comprehensive on its own.

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 itself documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., signal enum, session null restriction, process_id provenance). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Signal an owned process.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like colab_process_status (inspect) and colab_process_list. It also adds a critical scope restriction ('owned') and a safety condition ('never signal a replacement'), which uniquely identifies the tool's role.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'If already exited/lost, inspect status; never signal a replacement.' This tells the agent not to signal dead or replaced processes and to instead inspect status. It could be improved by naming the specific status tool (colab_process_status) or listing alternatives, but the conditional instruction is clear and actionable.

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