kill_process

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'kill', omitting details on the termination signal (e.g., SIGTERM vs SIGKILL), potential side effects (e.g., data loss), or whether it is reversible. The tool could be destructive, but this is not clarified.

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 extremely short (two words), but conciseness should not come at the cost of meaning. It fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently clear.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the action, parameter meaning, and return behavior. It does none of these, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'pid' parameter. It does not, leaving the agent to guess that pid is a process ID, without format or range constraints.

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 'Kill process' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any additional specificity, such as what types of processes it applies to (e.g., system vs user, local vs remote) or any distinguishing features from siblings like 'force_terminate'.

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 like 'force_terminate' or 'execute_command' with kill signals. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or scenarios.

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