shell_terminate

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the session holds a VM lock and that vm_unlock should be called afterward. This is not inferable from destructiveHint=true alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds critical lock context. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema and a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and lock behavior. However, it omits details about the session_id provenance, error handling, or what happens if the session doesn't exist. The annotations partially compensate, but completeness is average.

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 does not explain the session_id parameter semantics, such as where it comes from or how it is used. The description only implicitly maps session_id to the running shell session, which is insufficient given the lack of 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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Terminate') and resource ('running interactive shell session'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like shell_write, shell_read, and shell_start by focusing on termination, and the mention of VM lock adds unique context.

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 provides some context (VM remains locked, call vm_unlock when finished) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like shell_close or process_kill. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit, with no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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