ssh_task_kill

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 explains the force kill mechanism and the role of wait_seconds, and notes that the return is a dictionary. However, it does not disclose error handling for nonexistent PIDs or permission issues, which would be valuable for safe execution.

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 relatively concise at 5 sentences and front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but it efficiently conveys the core behavior and return type without unnecessary details.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of the force kill behavior. However, it omits important contextual prerequisites, such as the need for an active SSH session, and does not explain error handling or edge cases, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema; it mentions force and wait_seconds in context but does not elaborate on how to choose signal values or the effect of use_sudo. Thus, no significant extra value is provided.

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 ('Terminate a background task by sending a signal to its PID'), identifying both the verb and the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like ssh_cmd_kill, which may also terminate processes, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_cmd_kill) or when not to use it. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., an active SSH connection) and fails to set boundaries, making it difficult for the agent to decide between tools.

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