janitor_sweep_processes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default dry_run report-only behavior, the SIGTERM→SIGKILL escalation with a 3s grace window, and an explicit list of always-refused targets (systemd, compositors, sshd, shells, OrquestraAI). For a destructive tool these are exactly the traits an agent needs to reason about risk.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then targeting, then safety escalation and refusals. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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, so return-format detail is unnecessary and the description appropriately focuses on targeting, safety defaults, and refused targets. It is slightly thin on edge behavior (e.g., invalid pids, partial failures, platform assumptions), which keeps it from a 5 for a destructive four-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents pids, enumerates the target_type values ('orphans'|'browsers'|'compilers') that the schema does not constrain at all, and explains the semantic effect of both booleans (dry_run reports only; force permits SIGKILL). Nearly every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Terminate processes safely'), which clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings like janitor_scan_orphans and janitor_system_health. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It tells the agent how to invoke the tool (explicit pids and/or target_type, dry_run defaults to report-only), which is useful operational context. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over janitor_scan_orphans or what prerequisites should be checked first, so usage is only implied.

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