agent-tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Excellent disclosure of behavioral traits: tree kill scope, platform-specific implementations (NtSuspendProcess on Windows, SIGCHLD for zombies on Linux), dry_run preview capability, and critical safety constraints (refusal to target PID 0/1 or self).

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?

Six sentences with zero redundancy, front-loaded with core functionality. Each subsequent sentence earns its place by adding critical behavioral details (signals, zombies, dry_run, safety) essential for a destructive operation.

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 destructive 6-parameter tool with complex platform variations and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. Covers operational modes, safety constraints, preview capabilities, and OS-specific edge cases (zombies, Windows API details) necessary for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains zombie reaping mechanics beyond boolean flag, clarifies Windows vs Linux suspend/resume implementations, and emphasizes safety guards not present in 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?

Description opens with specific action triple ('Kills, suspends, or resumes') targeting a specific resource ('process') by identifiable attributes ('PID or port number'). Distinction from sibling procexec (execution) and proclist (listing) is implicit in the action verbs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on parameter combinations ('Use signal=stop to suspend', 'Use dry_run=true to preview') and platform-specific contexts ('On Linux...'). Lacks explicit sibling contrast (e.g., 'use proclist to find PIDs first'), but the parameter-specific guidance effectively constrains usage.

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