kill_task

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

With no annotations, the description partially bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the runner validates and kills only its child process, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., task status change, reversibility) and authorization requirements.

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 sentences front-loaded with action. No redundant words or phrases. Every sentence contributes essential 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and a key behavioral nuance. However, it does not explain the return value or whether the tool is idempotent, which are relevant for an agent deciding to invoke or retry.

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 100% (task_id has a clear description). The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond saying 'terminate a task', which is already implicit. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the primary 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 tool terminates pending or running tasks, with a specific verb (terminate) and resource (pending/running task). It also adds nuance about validation and child process ownership. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'cancel_task', which would provide clearer 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 implies usage for pending or running tasks and mentions the runner validates and kills its own child process. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'cancel_task' for gentler termination.

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