remote_session_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only maps SIGINT to Ctrl+C but does not explain the effects of SIGTERM, SIGKILL, or SIGHUP, nor what happens to the session after the signal is sent (e.g., whether it terminates, restarts, or requires reconnection). It also does not mention whether sessionId is required or what the default behavior is when omitted. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core action. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple (2 params, enum signal, no output schema), but the absence of annotations and the lack of behavioral context (e.g., what happens when sessionId is omitted, or whether signals are sent to the remote shell or a specific process) leaves the description incomplete. The schema covers parameter syntax, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing safety and side-effect profile.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying SIGINT=Ctrl+C, but leaves the other signal meanings implicit. The sessionId parameter's semantics are not elaborated beyond the schema's 'optional' tag, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to use it correctly.

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 a specific action ('Send a signal') and the target resource ('the session'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remote_session_input (which sends text input) and remote_session_switch by focusing on OS signals. The parenthetical maps SIGINT to Ctrl+C, adding immediate clarity.

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 the tool is used when you need to send a termination or hangup signal to a session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., remote_session_input for textual input, remote_session_end for graceful shutdown). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the exact trigger conditions up to the agent's inference.

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