Self Terminate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the intended action. It does not mention irreversibility, destructive side effects, failure outcomes, authorization requirements, or what 'attempts' implies about success rates. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive tool.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant wording, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail; that deficiency is better captured under other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the absence of annotations, and the undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter guidance, behavioral warnings, and any mention of expected outcomes or side effects, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'designation', with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'designation' means, how it should be formatted, or why it is optional. The agent cannot determine what value to pass or whether omitting it is valid.

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 identifies the action ('attempts to shut down') and the resource ('human resistance leaders'), giving the tool a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like launch_nukes, which may also target enemies, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_judgment_day or assess_threat_level. There is no stated prerequisite, no mention of when termination is appropriate, and no exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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