Stop a task

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well past them by describing the actual mechanics: Ctrl-C is signal-based and "well-behaved programs obey and clean up after," whereas force uses RemTask and leaves memory, files and windows behind and "the system may crash." That consequence detail is exactly the context an agent needs before choosing force, and it also notes the tool reports what was done.

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 tight sentences ordered by importance: what it does, the safe default, then the dangerous escalation with its consequences. Every clause carries information and the risk warning is not buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers action, targeting, default behavior, escalation condition and collateral damage. The only soft spot is the return value, described only as "what was done" with no output schema to fall back on.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented — and the description largely restates them ("by name or by address from amiga_ps," force = RemTask). The only added meaning is the operational rule that force is a last resort after Ctrl-C fails. 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?

"Stop a task or process by name or by address from amiga_ps" gives a specific verb (stop) and resource (task/process) plus the two accepted identifier forms. It clearly separates this from sibling list/introspection tools like amiga_ps and amiga_info without needing the schema.

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 gives a clear escalation policy: default Ctrl-C, and force only "when Ctrl-C has failed." That is real when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as amiga_break or amiga_health, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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