driftguard_kill_process

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive, irreversible operation. It says 'terminates' but never states that the action cannot be undone, that it likely requires elevated privileges, whether child processes are affected, or what happens if the PID does not exist. The only real behavioral detail (SIGTERM default vs SIGKILL with force) lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the use-case hint second. Nothing is redundant or padded, and it is readable in one pass.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what will be done. What is missing is the risk profile of a destructive system operation — irreversibility and permission requirements — which is exactly the gap annotations would normally have filled.

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%: both pid and force are fully documented, including the SIGTERM/SIGKILL distinction. The description merely echoes the PID concept and adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (terminates) and resource (a system process identified by its PID) and adds a concrete motivating scenario (freeing a blocked port). It is clearly distinct from the snapshot/rollback/diagnose siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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 parenthetical example ('per liberare una porta bloccata') implies when the tool is useful, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on preconditions (finding the PID first, e.g. via driftguard_inspect_ports) and no when-not-to-use or safety caveat about killing the wrong process.

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