Signal terminal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It does add the specific signal names and the Unix HUP note, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential consequences (e.g., session termination, irreversibility) or any prerequisites beyond what annotations provide. It adds some value but not deep behavioral context.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and signals. No filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with two parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what session_id refers to or how to obtain it, nor does it enumerate valid signal_name values or mention any prerequisites (e.g., session must be active). Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the invocation requirements are largely undocumented, making the description insufficient for correct usage.

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 must compensate. It mentions signals (INT/TERM/KILL) which hints at signal_name values, but it does not explicitly map these to the parameter, nor does it explain session_id at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics.

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 (send signals), the target (terminal session), and the specific signals (INT/TERM/KILL, HUP on Unix). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like terminal_write (input) and terminal_close (close), and process_kill (process-level). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for terminal sessions only, nor does it contrast with process_kill or other signal-related tools. The only implicit context is the 'terminal session' phrase, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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