arch_kill_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral context. While it mentions the signal types, it does not disclose that SIGKILL is uncatchable and may leave resources unclean, that permission to kill the process may be required, or what happens on invalid/nonexistent PIDs. The destructive nature is implied but not elaborated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes essential information. The structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the action, the target, and the signal options. However, without annotations, it lacks safety/error context that a destructive tool would benefit from, and it does not mention how to discover PIDs (sibling tool arch_process_list). It is minimally viable but not rich.

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?

The description adds meaning to both parameters: 'by its PID' clarifies pid's role, and 'SIGTERM or SIGKILL' constrains the signal to two allowed values, which the schema does not enumerate. However, it does not explain the behavioral difference between signals or default behavior beyond the schema's default. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 action ('Terminate'), the resource ('a running process'), and the key parameter ('by its PID'). It also specifies the signal options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like arch_process_list and arch_systemctl. The verb is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need to terminate a process by PID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any mention of how to obtain the PID (e.g., via arch_process_list). No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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