msf_process_signal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that SIGINT interrupts native console/IRB work and may exit a standalone tool, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses the following sentences efficiently to list valid signals and one important caveat. It is appropriately sized, with no obvious filler.

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 and annotations cover the destructive/non-idempotent profile, lowering the description's burden. However, for a destructive signaling tool, it should clarify whether process_id targets a process group or an individual process and what permissions or scope assumptions apply.

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%, so the description must compensate. It substantially documents signal_name by listing accepted POSIX signals, but process_id is left unexplained and the phrase 'process group' is not reconciled with the process_id parameter.

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: 'Signal the process group' and enumerates interrupt/terminate/kill/stop/continue outcomes. It is clearly distinct from sibling process tools such as msf_process_write or msf_process_close, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the signal list and the SIGINT caveat, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like msf_process_close or msf_process_write. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives are stated.

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