kill_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It covers critical safety traits: refuses PID 0/1, root-owned checks, optional name confirmation, and signal defaults. It stops short of explaining what happens when a refusal occurs or how partial failures are handled, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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 succinct and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by a bulleted list of safety mechanisms. Every sentence is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present). The description covers the essential behavior and safety constraints. It doesn't discuss outcome reporting or edge cases like already-terminated processes, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, adequately complete for its complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that SIGKILL is only used when explicitly requested and that name confirmation aborts kills on mismatch, which are constraints not fully spelled out in the parameter descriptions.

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 'Kill processes by PID', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It is distinctly different from sibling tools that list or find processes, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to terminate processes) and highlights safety mechanisms, making the intended use obvious. It doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios, but none of the sibling tools perform killing, so the usage is unambiguous.

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