kill_process_by_name

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds the detail that it kills 'all' matching processes, which is useful but not extensive. It does not mention irreversibility or permissions, though annotations carry the core safety signal.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly.

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 is adequate but lacks context about edge cases (e.g., no match, multiple matches, return values). No output schema exists, so more detail on expected behavior would improve completeness, though the tool is straightforward.

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 0% – the 'name' parameter has no description. The description only implies the parameter is a process name but adds no details on matching semantics (exact match, wildcards, case sensitivity). It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a clear action ('Kill all processes') with a specific resource ('matching a name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'kill_process' (likely PID-based) by specifying name matching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the alternative.

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 like kill_process (by PID) or list_processes first. It implies usage for name-based matching but does not state conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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