Kill process

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that PID 1 and the MCP server itself are protected, and by framing the operation as a signal send rather than an unconditional kill. It does not contradict 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded action, and no filler. Every word adds relevant 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 simple destructive tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the core call is usable. However, missing guidance on signal_name values and sibling tool differentiation leaves an agent making assumptions about a destructive operation.

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%, so the description carries the burden, but it does not explain signal_name allowed values or pid semantics beyond what the field names imply. The reader is left without knowing valid signals or whether the signal can be customized.

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's 'Send a signal to a host process' names a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces the kill intent. It is clear enough to distinguish from list-style siblings like process_list, but it does not explicitly differentiate from terminal_signal or run_command.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as terminal_signal or process_list. The only additional constraint, protected PIDs, is a behavioral safeguard rather than usage direction.

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