kill_process

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by explaining the signal behavior (SIGTERM vs SIGKILL), the critical process safelist, and the user-confirmation requirement. This adds significant behavioral context that is not present in 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, signal behavior, and safety guardrails. Front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary verbiage.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, safety restrictions, and required user consent. It is complete for an AI agent to understand invocation and constraints.

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% with descriptions for both pid and force. The description reinforces the force semantics ('SIGKILL if force=True') but does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Terminates a process by PID', which is a specific verb+resource+method. It clearly distinguishes kill_process from sibling tools like get_process_details or process_tree, as it is the only one that performs termination.

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 clear usage guidance: confirms with user before calling, defaults to SIGTERM, and refuses to kill critical system processes. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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