ssh_cmd_kill

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the kill process: default signal 15, force behavior with wait_seconds and SIGKILL, and return type. It lacks details on error handling for invalid handles but is otherwise transparent.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loads the purpose, and is well-structured. No redundant text; each sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists, the return description is adequate. It covers purpose, differentiation, and behavioral details. Minor gaps in error scenarios but sufficient for a kill tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context on force/wait interaction but largely repeats schema information. It doesn't significantly augment parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 terminates a running command by handle ID, explicitly distinguishing from background tasks (ssh_task_launch). This precise verb-resource pairing differentiates it from sibling tools like ssh_task_kill.

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?

It specifies when to use (for commands from ssh_cmd_run, not tasks) and explains force/wait behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of ssh_task_kill', the differentiation is clear from context.

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