e2b_send_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'send signal' without explaining that sending SIGKILL is forceful and irreversible, that the process will be terminated, or that the operation requires an active sandbox and appropriate permissions. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive action.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key selection details, making it immediately scannable and concise.

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?

Given the 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value/error behavior, whether pid and tag are mutually exclusive or both optional, the purpose of username and accessToken, or any prerequisites. An agent would be uncertain how to structure a valid call.

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 coverage is only 43% (3 of 7 parameters documented). The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that pid or tag are selection mechanisms, and it reiterates the signal enum values. It does not, however, explain the relationship between pid and tag (e.g., whether one is required or how they interact). This partial compensation raises the score above baseline.

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 action (send SIGTERM or SIGKILL), the target (a process in a sandbox), and the selection mechanism (by pid or tag). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like e2b_list_processes (which lists) and e2b_send_stdin (which sends input).

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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives like e2b_list_processes or e2b_send_stdin, nor does it state when to use this tool versus others. The intended use case is implied by the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or when not to use it.

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