emergency_kill_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the need for KILL_SECRET env var, which is a behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., destruction of agents) or irreversibility, which would be expected for a kill switch.

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 one sentence (10 words), front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It communicates the action and a key requirement. However, for an emergency kill switch, more behavioral context (e.g., that it is immediate and irreversible) would improve completeness.

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% (the 'reason' parameter is described in schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3, so this is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'stop' and resource 'all agents', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It also mentions a prerequisite (KILL_SECRET env var), which adds clarity. Among sibling tools, none serve a similar function, so it is well-differentiated.

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 use for emergencies ('Emergency stop') and explicitly requires an environment variable. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are unrelated.

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