kill_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: it does not say whether the kill is graceful or forceful beyond the schema's SIGTERM default, whether a non-existent process_id errors or is a no-op, or what happens to buffered output after the process dies (relevant given poll_output/read_output siblings). Only the minimal act of killing is disclosed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately terse for a single-purpose tool, though the terseness comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the post-kill semantics an agent needs: whether the process is terminated immediately, whether exit status is retrievable, and whether errors are raised for unknown or already-dead processes. Parameter coverage is complete, but the behavioral picture is not.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both process_id and signal are already documented in the schema, including the SIGTERM default. The description adds no semantics beyond restating process_id as the key, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (kill) and resource (a background process) plus the keying parameter (process_id), so the agent immediately knows what operation this is. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like start_process or destroy_session, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated precondition (e.g. the process must have been created by start_process and still be running), and no mention of alternatives such as destroy_session for cleaning up a whole session. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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