msf_process_close

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the destructive annotation: it explains descendant tracking via ancestry and an inherited ownership marker, PTY release, output deletion, shutdown-time cleanup, and the fact that it does not stop an external RPC daemon. These details materially inform the agent about scope and side effects.

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 action and destructive effects are front-loaded, and the extra sentences about ownership tracking, output retrieval, shutdown cleanup, and RPC daemon exclusion are relevant. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive one-parameter tool, the description covers scope, side effects, preconditions, and an important exclusion; the main remaining gap is how to source or format the process_id.

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 0%, and the description only says 'this process' without explaining the process_id format or where to obtain it (e.g., from msf_process_list or msf_process_start). The single required parameter is named clearly, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: stop a process, stop owned descendants, release its PTY, and delete output. It is clearly distinct from read/write/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name which alternative to use for simple signal delivery.

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 gives one concrete precondition, 'Retrieve output first', but does not explain when to choose this tool over msf_process_signal or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the destructive close behavior rather than explicitly compared against sibling tools.

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