container_kill_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description's single sentence fails to disclose that this operation can forcibly terminate a container, potentially causing data loss or being irreversible. It also omits any mention of permission requirements, container state, or consequences of sending different signals.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. While it is appropriately brief, it is perhaps too terse to provide substantive guidance, but conciseness itself is well handled.

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 potentially destructive kill operation, the description lacks important context about safety, prerequisites, and expected behavior. Even with an output schema, the description fails to convey why or when this tool should be used, leaving a significant gap.

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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the default signal. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the action, so the baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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 it sends a signal to a container, which is a specific verb+resource action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from container_stop_tool, which also sends a signal (e.g., SIGTERM), so the differentiation from siblings is weak.

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 no guidance on when to use kill versus stop or other container tools. There are no usage exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.

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