pg_kill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'controlled process termination with optional force mode,' which indicates destructive behavior and a safety mechanism. However, it lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., data loss), or error handling. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point usage guidelines and a final sentence about behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague language. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with critical information.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage scenarios, and key behavioral aspects (controlled termination, force mode). However, it lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain pid format or force mode implications). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the specific action ('terminate specific database processes') and resource ('database processes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pg_ps (which lists processes) or pg_maintenance (which manages maintenance). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is not tautological with the tool name.

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 lists four specific scenarios when to use this tool: '1) Stop problematic or stuck queries, 2) Clear blocking transactions, 3) Manage resource-intensive operations, 4) Handle runaway processes safely.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like ps_restart (which restarts dynos) or maintenance_on/off (which controls app maintenance).

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