force_terminate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs an immediate kill without waiting for clean termination, equates to SIGKILL, and cleans the session log after termination. It does not mention potential data loss or open file consequences, but given the nature of SIGKILL, the behavior is sufficiently 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 very concise with three short sentences and a bullet-like structure. Every sentence adds value: purpose, equivalence, and usage alternative. No unnecessary text.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema present (though not shown), the description covers the core behavior and even mentions session cleanup. It lacks explicit return value details, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is complete for a simple 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters (only 'pid') with a description. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool kills a process immediately without waiting for clean termination, using verbs like 'Mata' and referencing Unix/Windows signals. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'kill_process' by noting that the latter can perform a cleaner shutdown with force=False.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (immediate kill equity to SIGKILL/TerminateProcess) and when to use the alternative (kill_process with force=False for cleaner termination). This provides clear usage guidance.

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